APPENDIX
B.
POLICY
FOR THE CUMULATIVE REVIEW OF PERMANENTLY TENURED FACULTY OF
II. Description
of Policy
[Please refer to interpretation #I98-10 located in the Index
of ECU Faculty Manual Interpretations.]
A. Timing
At
five-year intervals, beginning with academic year 1998-1999, each permanently
tenured faculty member shall have a review of all aspects of his or her
professional performance during the review interval. A review leading to promotion in rank
qualifies as a cumulative review. A
faculty member granted permanent tenure shall be reviewed within five years of
the granting of tenure.
Probationary-term faculty members are excluded because other review mechanisms
exist to evaluate their performance.
Unit* administrators, deans, and administrators at the division or
university level shall be excluded from this policy. After returning to full-time
teaching/research responsibilities, administrators shall be evaluated in their
fifth year and following five-year intervals.
Each academic unit’s tenure committee shall decide whether all of its tenured faculty will be reviewed in the same year or whether its tenured faculty will be reviewed according to a serial plan. Those units choosing a serial plan shall also determine the method of serialization.
B. Performance
Standards for the Review
For
the cumulative review of performance for the five-year period, the unit’s
Tenure Committee shall draft standards of “exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and
“deficient” performance, taking into account the provisions of Appendix C,
Section I, C and D of the ECU Faculty Manual, the unit’s code
provisions, and the primacy of teaching/advising within the UNC system
institutions. These standards should be
consistent with changing goals of the unit and the university while also
considering varying expectations at the time of the granting of permanent
tenure for individual faculty members.
The
Tenure Committee shall submit the proposed standards to the unit administrator
for concurrence or nonconcurrence. At
that point, two possible actions may occur.
(1) If the unit administrator concurs, he or she shall forward the
standards to the next higher administrator.
If the next higher administrator does not agree with the standards
developed by the Tenure Committee and concurred with by the unit administrator,
every effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve
the disagreement. If the effort fails,
the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who may accept
the standards or return them for revision.
(2) When the unit administrator and Tenure Committee disagree, every
effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the disagreement
within the unit. If the effort fails,
the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who may accept
the standards or return them for revision.
In either case, any amendment to these standards must be approved by a
vote of at least 2/3 of the Tenure Committee and follow the same process for
initially proposed standards.
C. Cumulative
Review Committee (CRC)
The Tenure Committee will elect a minimum of three
faculty members and one alternate from the permanently tenured voting faculty (ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix L, Section A. Voting Faculty Member) not holding
administrative status to serve on the Cumulative Review Committee. The alternate shall serve when a member is
unable to serve. Members on the
Cumulative Review Committee shall serve for one academic year.
When a unit is unable to elect three permanently
tenured voting faculty members not holding administrative status, the next
higher administrator above the unit level shall appoint permanently tenured
voting faculty not holding administrative status from other units to increase
the committee’s membership to three members and one alternate. These appointments to the committee must be
from one list of candidates selected by a vote of the permanently tenured and
probationary-term faculty of the unit.
The list forwarded to the next higher administrator by the appropriate
faculty will contain at least twice the number of faculty members required to
complete the membership of the committee.
Before voting on the list to be forwarded to the next higher
administrator, the voting faculty will ascertain that faculty members nominated
to have their names placed on the list are willing and able to serve in this
important capacity. The list of faculty
names recommended to the next higher administrator may not be returned for
revision.
D. Review
Process
Cumulative
Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty shall cover all aspects of the faculty
member’s professional performance and be based on the faculty member’s most recent
annual reports and most recent annual performance evaluations (ECU Faculty
Manual, Appendix C, Section III. Evaluations) for the cumulative review
period. The review shall take into
account the faculty member’s contribution for the period to the mission of the
unit, the school or college, and the university. Permanently tenured full-time faculty members
who have received University approved leaves of absence shall not have such
leave time counted as part of the cumulative review period.
Should
a subsequent academic unit administrator disagree with the annual reviews and
annual reports of an individual faculty member composed before the term of
office of the incumbent administrator, the administrator shall not dismiss,
alter, or argue against the body and conclusions of the earlier annual reviews
and reports.
The
initial review shall be conducted by the unit administrator who, using the
attached Form A or Form B, shall prepare a summary report which categorizes
each faculty member’s performance as exemplary, satisfactory, or
deficient. The report, together with the
annual reports and annual performance evaluations, shall be reviewed by the
Cumulative Review Committee. For each
faculty member, the Cumulative Review Committee shall either agree or disagree
with the findings of the unit administrator.
When
the unit administrator and the Cumulative Review Committee agree, the unit
administrator shall report the results of the cumulative review in writing to
the faculty member and place a copy of the written evaluation in the faculty
member’s personnel file. Faculty whose
cumulative review reflects exemplary performance shall be recognized and
rewarded.
When
the unit administrator and Cumulative Review Committee disagree, every effort
(including discussion and negotiation) will be made to resolve the disagreement
within the unit. If the effort to
resolve the disagreement fails, the matter will be referred to the next higher
administrator for final decision.
E. Reconsideration
A
faculty member whose review process determines a deficient performance level
shall have the opportunity to respond within 20 calendar days. The faculty member may request that the unit
administrator and Cumulative Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based
on additional substantive information provided by the faculty member. In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit
administrator and Cumulative Review Committee shall have the opportunity to
nullify, modify, or reconfirm the original evaluation.
If,
upon reconsideration, the unit administrator and Cumulative Review Committee
disagree, every effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to
resolve the disagreement within the unit.
If the effort fails, the matter shall be referred to the next higher
administrator for final decision.
The
unit administrator shall report the decision in writing to the faculty member
and place a copy of the report in the faculty member’s personnel file.
F. Faculty
Development Plan
A
faculty member whose cumulative review reflects deficient performance shall
negotiate a formal development plan with the Cumulative Review Committee and
the unit administrator. The development
plan must identify specific strengths and deficiencies and also define specific
goals or outcomes that would help the faculty member overcome the identified
deficiencies. It should also outline
activities, set guidelines, indicate approved criteria by which the faculty
member could monitor his or her progress, and identify the source of any
institutional commitments, if required.
The development plan shall set reasonable time limits, not to exceed
three academic years from the implementation of the plan. The plan shall represent a commitment by the
faculty member, the Cumulative Review Committee, and the unit administrator to
improve the faculty member’s performance and provide adequate resources to
support the plan. The plan shall be
consistent with the faculty member’s academic freedom (as defined by the ECU
Faculty Manual, Part III), shall be self-directed by the faculty member,
and shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for subsequent amendment, if
necessary. Such amendment will follow
the same process as the development of the original plan. If the unit administrator, Cumulative Review
Committee, and faculty member cannot agree on a formal development plan, each
party’s draft of a plan will be forwarded to the next higher administrator, who
will make the final decision. The
faculty member’s development progress shall be reviewed annually by the Cumulative
Review Committee and the unit administrator, who shall provide a written
evaluation of progress to the faculty member.
G. Subsequent
Evaluation
If
the faculty member’s cumulative performance level is satisfactory within the
designated period of time, the unit administrator shall report the results of
the cumulative review in writing to the faculty member and place a copy of the
written evaluation in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member will undergo another
cumulative review at the beginning of the next cumulative review interval. If the faculty member’s cumulative
performance level remains deficient after the designated period, the unit
administrator may recommend that serious sanctions be imposed as governed by
Appendix D, Section VI, “Due Process Before Discharge or Imposition of Serious
Sanction,” of the ECU Faculty Manual and the Code of the Board of
Governors of the University of North Carolina.
*With
respect to personnel matters relating to Cumulative Review, academic units are
defined as departments described in the codes of operation of professional
schools, the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, professional
schools without departments, Academic Library Services, Health Sciences
Library, and any other units in which faculty appointments are made. In the