Approved
by the
Approved
by the Chancellor: November 3, 2008
Approved
by UNC General Administration: pending
Proposed
Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured
Faculty of ECU
(All additions are noted in bold print and deletions in strikethrough.)
APPENDIX B
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
POLICY FOR THE CUMULATIVE REVIEW OF
PERMANENTLY TENURED FACULTY OF
EAST
CONTENTS
I. Preamble
II. Description
of Policy
A. Timing
B. Performance Standards for the Review
C. Cumulative Performance Review Committee (CRC) (PRC)
D. Review Process
E. Rewards
F.E. Reconsideration
G.F. Faculty Development Plan
H.G. Subsequent Evaluation
III. Form
A and B
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
Policy for
The Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty
Of
I. Preamble
On May 16,
1997, the Board of Governors mandated the review of performance of tenured
faculty in the
On March 10, 2008, the UNC Board of
Governors revised its Guidelines
on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (The UNC Policy Manual: 400.3.3.1(G)). On October 15,
2008, this ECU performance review policy was revised accordingly.
Cumulative Performance Review of Permanently
Tenured Faculty meets the revised
guidelines of the the Code The Code of the University. This
policy does not create a process for the reevaluation or revalidation of
tenured status. The basic standard for
appraisal and evaluation is whether the faculty member under review discharges
conscientiously and with professional competence the duties associated with his
or her position. Furthermore, the policy
is created with the widespread presumption of competence on the part of each
tenured faculty member. The performance review for a faculty member
must reflect the nature of the individual’s field or work and must conform to
fair and reasonable expectations as recognized by faculty peers in each
department and discipline. The review
must be conducted in a manner free of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory
elements and must follow these agreed-upon procedures.
II. Description of Policy
[Please refer to interpretation #I98-10
located in the Index of ECU Faculty Manual Interpretations at
http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/interpretations.htm.]
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 review current standards of “exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and
“deficient” performance and revise as necessary. ,taking into account These standards will comply with 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
and should address the faculty member’s teaching, research, service and other
duties, including contributions to the departmental college/school and
university goals, contributions to the academic programs in which the faculty
member teaches and any other professional activities bearing on the faculty
member’s performance of his or her duties during the period under review.
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
Performance Review Committee (CPRC)
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 Performance Review Committee.
The alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. Members on the Cumulative Performance 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 Performance
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 will be informed by the faculty member’s annual reports and annual
evaluations (ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Section III. Evaluations),
but primarily shall be based on a comprehensive assessment of the faculty
member’s teaching, research, service and other duties, including contributions
to the departmental college/school and university goals, contributions to the
academic programs in which the faculty member teaches and any other
professional activities bearing on the faculty member’s performance of his or
her duties during the period under review. 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 performance 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 performance review
report which shall consist of a
narrative evaluation of the overall performance of the candidate that takes
into account the relative weights assigned to each duty during each of the
years being reviewed and the amount of reassigned time from teaching to the
performance of other duties for each year under review. This evaluation shall
conclude with an overall ranking that categorizes each faculty member’s
performance as exemplary, satisfactory, or deficient.
The evaluative
report, together with the faculty member’s annual reports and annual
performance evaluations for the period
under review, a copy of the faculty member’s current curriculum vita, and any
other material the faculty member wishes to provide to the review committee in
support of his/her professional performance over the review period, shall be
forwarded to reviewed by the Cumulative Performance Review
Committee. Any additional supporting material provided by
the faculty member to the Performance Review Committee shall become part of the
permanent personnel file. For each faculty member, the Cumulative Performance Review Committee shall
either agree or disagree with the findings of the unit administrator.
When the
unit administrator and the Cumulative Performance Review Committee agree, the Performance Review Committee shall report this agreement on the Form A. The unit
administrator shall provide a copy of the report the
results of the cumulative review in writing to the faculty member and to
the next higher administrator, and place a copy of the report in the faculty member’s personnel file.
When the
unit administrator and Cumulative Performance
Review Committee disagree, every effort (including discussion and negotiation) will
shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort to resolve the disagreement fails, the Performance Review Committee shall
prepare its own report. The unit
administrator shall provide copies of both reports to the faculty member and the
matter will be referred to the next higher administrator, who for final decision after
reviewing both reports and the faculty member’s supporting materials, shall
make the final decision, which shall be reported in writing to the faculty
member. A copy of the final decision
shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and provided to both the
Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator. , the matter
will be referred to the next higher administrator for final decision.
E. Rewards
The first priority of
the revised UNC Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty is that
faculty whose cumulative review reflects exemplary performance shall be
recognized and rewarded. A faculty
member whose review reflects exemplary performance may be recognized in ways
including, but not limited to, nomination for awards, merit salary increases,
research leaves, and/or revisions of work load.
F.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 Performance
Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based on additional substantive
information provided by the faculty member.
In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit administrator and Cumulative
Performance Review Committee shall have the opportunity to nullify, modify, or
reconfirm the original evaluation (or
evaluations, in the case of disagreement between the committee and the unit
administrator). The response of the faculty member to the report of deficient
performance and the decision of the committee and the unit administrator shall
be reported to the next higher administrator.
When the committee and the unit
administrator disagree on the appropriate action after a reconsideration initiated
by the faculty member under review, 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 conflicting responses to the
reconsideration appeal by the faculty member under review 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. The final decision of a higher administrator shall be reported in
writing to the faculty member and a copy of the final decision shall be placed
in the faculty member’s personnel file and provided to both the Performance
Review Committee and the unit administrator.
G.F. Faculty
Development Plan
A faculty
member whose cumulative review reflects deficient performance shall negotiate a
formal development plan with the Cumulative Performance 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 Performance 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
Performance 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
in a meeting that occurs at least semiannually by the Cumulative Performance Review Committee and the
unit administrator, who shall provide a written evaluation of progress to the
faculty member.
H.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 Chapter VI of the The Code of the Board of Governors of
the University of North Carolina.
*With respect to personnel matters relating to Cumulative
Performance 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
III. Form A: Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty A and B
Approved:
15 April
1998
Amended:
Interpretation
made to Section II., October 1998
Cumulative
Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty
East
Form A
Faculty member: ____________
School/department:
_____________________
Date: __________________
______________________________________________________________________
I. Summary
of Annual Evaluations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Cumulative
Review Evaluation: _______ Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient*
*A
“deficient” evaluation must be accompanied by a written justification for this
finding.
______________________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Cumulative Review Committee Response: _______
Agree
_______
Disagree
Committee Chair
Date
Performance Review of
CumulativePermanently Tenured Faculty
Faculty member:
_____________________
School/department:
____________________Date:
__________________
______________________________________________________________________
I. Summary of Annual Narrative
Evaluations of most recent 5 years of faculty performance:
II. Cumulative Summary
Performance Review Evaluation: _______ Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient*
*A
“deficient” evaluation must be accompanied by a written justification for this
finding.
_______________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________ __________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Cumulative Performance
Review Committee Response: _______ Agree ______Disagree
_____________________________________ ____________ Committee Chair Date