(Please contact the
Approved by the Faculty Senate: September 15, 2009
Approved by the Chancellor: October 15, 2009
Approved
by the Board of Trustees: November 20, 2009
Approved
by the UNC General Administration: August
13, 2010
(Please
note these additional revisions follow those already adopted by the
Proposed additions are noted in bold print
and deletions are noted in strikethrough.
ECU Faculty Manual
APPENDIX B
POLICY FOR
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF TENURED FACULTY
OF
CONTENTS
I. Preamble
II. Description of Policy
A. Timing
B. Performance
Standards for the Review
C. Performance
Review Committee (PRC)
D. Review
Process
E. Rewards
F. Reconsideration
G. Faculty
Development Plan
H. Subsequent
Evaluation
III. Form
POLICY FOR
PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF 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.
II. Description
of Policy
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 performance 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 review current standards
of “exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and “deficient” performance and revise as necessary. 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. Performance Review Committee (PRC)
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 Performance Review Committee. The
alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. Members on the 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
Performance
Review of Tenured Faculty shall cover all aspects of the faculty member’s
professional performance. 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. 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 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, 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. A negative review must include a statement of the faculty member’s
primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they
relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties.
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 the 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 Performance Review
Committee shall either agree or disagree with the findings of the unit
administrator.
When
the unit administrator and the Performance Review Committee agree, the
Performance Review Committee shall report this agreement on the Form. The unit administrator
shall provide a copy of the report 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 Performance Review Committee disagree, every effort
(including discussion and negotiation) 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 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.
A faculty member may
provide the unit administrator with a written response within 20 calendar days
of receiving his or her performance review.
A copy of the faculty member’s response will be placed in the faculty
member’s personnel file and provided to the Performance Review Committee. A
faculty member’s response to a negative review will also be shared at the next
highest administrative level.
E. Rewards
The
first priority of the revised UNC Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured
Faculty is that faculty whose performance 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. Additional support for this form of recognition may be provided by the
department, school, college or division.
F. 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 Performance Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based
on additional substantive information provided by the faculty member. In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit
administrator and 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, every
effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort fails, the conflicting responses to the reconsideration appeal by the
faculty member under review shall be referred to
the next higher administrator for final decision.
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. Faculty Development Plan
A
faculty member whose performance review reflects deficient performance shall
negotiate a formal development plan with the Performance Review Committee and
the unit administrator. The development
plan must: (a) identify specific
shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s performance of his or her
assigned duties; (b) state any modification of duties due to a less than
satisfactory rating and take into account the new allocation of
responsibilities; (c) include specific steps designed to lead to the required
degree of improvement; (d) specify a time line, not to exceed three academic
years, in which improvement is expected to occur; (e) schedule and require
written records of progress meetings between the faculty member, the unit
administrator and the chair of the Performance Review Committee at regular
intervals no less frequently than twice each academic term; (f) state the
consequences for the faculty member should improvement not occur within the
designated timeline. The use of mentoring peers is encouraged.
The description of specific steps designed to
lead to improvement shall 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 state guidelines, indicate approved present 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 is
a commitment by the faculty member, the Performance Review Committee, and the
unit administrator to improve the faculty member’s performance. and provide Adequate resources shall be provided 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, 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 twice each academic term by the
Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator, who shall provide a
written evaluation of progress to the faculty member. A copy of this evaluation will be provided to the faculty member and
placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
H. 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 performance 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
performance review at the beginning of the next performance 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 Code
of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.
*With respect to personnel matters relating
to 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:
Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
Approved:
15
April 1998
Amended:
Interpretation
made to Section II., October 1998
Faculty Senate
Resolution #08-42, October 2008
Faculty Senate Resolution #09-33, September 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance
Review of Tenured Faculty
Faculty member: _____________________
School/department:
____________________Date:
__________________
______________________________________________________________________
I. Narrative
Evaluation of most recent 5 years of faculty performance:
II. Summary
Performance Review Evaluation: _______
Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient
_______________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________ __________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Performance Review Committee Response: _______
Agree
_______Disagree
_____________________________________ ____________
Committee Chair Date