Post-Tenure Review

Every five years tenured faculty should undergo a thorough cumulative evaluation called a Post-Tenure Review. The Post-Tenure Review is designed to promote continuous renewal and improvement among faculty members who have tenure and is required by policy of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of North Carolina. A review undertaken as part of a promotion application can qualify as a cumulative review. Directional goals established at the beginning of the 5-year cycle by the chair and faculty member should be used in setting milestones to be reviewed annually by the senior faculty/chair. The 5-year formal post-tenure review and recommendations should be made by senior faculty who are at equal or higher ranks and presented to the faculty member, chair (if not part of the review committee) and dean in writing. In addition, the dean must provide an evaluative review.

A promotion application can be considered as a post-tenure review if it occurs 3-5 years after a successful tenure, promotion or post-tenure review. If the faculty member under review is not recommended for promotion, the application will undergo the post-tenure review process. It shall be the responsibility of the dean to assure compliance with standards of performance established by faculty members in their department.

Postponement of the scheduled five-year review may be requested for extenuating circumstances, such as illness, educational leave, and family and/or personal crisis. A request for postponement must be presented to and approved by the chair of the department, the dean, and the provost and filed with the Office of Faculty Affairs, who will in turn make a notation in the electronic record of the faculty member.

The faculty member will provide the following documents: a narrative in executive summary format (3-5 pages) articulating the outcomes achieved by the faculty member in the performance of teaching, scholarship, and service relative to the directional goals set at the beginning of the review cycle or the post-tenure or promotion criteria of the department; evidence to support the narrative and an current curriculum vitae. The department shall be required to provide written annual evaluations for the five years following the awarding of permanent tenure or last post-tenure review. Failure by the department to supply annual reviews should not negatively impact the faculty member’s review. If faculty responsibilities are primarily only to one or two of these areas, post-tenure review and resulting recommendations will take this allocation of responsibilities into account.

Each department will elect a group of at least three faculty members who have tenure at or above the rank of the faculty member under review, excluding the department chair, to serve on the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The faculty member being reviewed will not have the option of selecting members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. If a department is unable to elect a group of at least three rank-appropriate tenured faculty members, the dean in consultation with the department chair will coordinate the election of tenured, rank-appropriate faculty from similar departments to constitute the Post-Tenure Review Committee. A department within the same Faculty, in the case of the College, or within the same School shall be considered a similar department. A chair shall be selected from the members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The chair and the Committee should be re-elected at two-year intervals.

The chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee will contact the faculty member(s) to be reviewed to request the review materials and to share the timeline for the review. The timelines must fall within those established by the university so that reports can be submitted to the BOG when required. After careful consideration of the material evidence and consultation with the department chair, the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall render a report summarizing the results of the evaluation with recommendations. The evaluative findings are Outstanding Performance, Satisfactory Performance, or Unsatisfactory Performance.

The report shall be reviewed by the department chair before it is presented to the faculty member by the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The department chair forwards the committee’s report and the faculty member’s materials to the dean who must provide an independent evaluative review. The dean must provide the faculty member and the provost’s office with a copy of her/his report which includes a summary of the committee’s recommendation. The letter is placed in the faculty member’s personnel record. An Unsatisfactory Performance report must include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s responsibilities.

If there is agreement between the committee, department chair and the dean that performance is at least satisfactory, then the post-tenure review is complete. The department chair and faculty member set directional goals for the next five-year post-tenure review. If the committee, chair and the dean agree that performance is unsatisfactory then the review is complete. If there is not agreement that the performance is at least satisfactory, then the review is sent to the provost for a final recommendation.

If the performance is deemed Unsatisfactory, the faculty member can contest the report and appeal the findings to the Faculty Grievance Committee or the faculty member can accept the report and enter into a development period not to exceed three years. The development plan approved by the chair and dean must include specific steps designed to lead to improvement, a specified timeline in which improvement is expected to occur, and a clear statement of consequences should improvement not occur with the designated timeline. If the faculty member’s performance remains unsatisfactory after the three-year period following the review, the department chair will recommend an appropriate disposition (sanction) to the dean. Disciplinary sanctions referencing failure to achieve the outcomes established in the overall Post-Tenure Review and the Development Plan must be consistent with criteria designated in the UNC Policy Manual (Chapter VI of The Code of the University of North Carolina). The department chair will provide a peer mentor and will schedule progress meetings with the faculty member who receives an Unsatisfactory Performance rating on at least a semi-annual basis during the specified timeline. If duties are modified as a result of a less than satisfactory rating, then the development plans shall be revised to take into account the new allocation of responsibilities. If the faculty member achieves the anticipated outcomes within the specified incremental time period, a Satisfactory or (Outstanding) rating will be granted.

If the faculty member is progressing in a positive direction, but has not yet achieved the satisfactory or higher level performance rating according to the timeline, the chair in consultation with the dean may recommend a redesign or adjustment to the development plan prior to reevaluation by the Post-Tenure Review Committee at the end of the three-year period. The faculty member, chair and dean should all receive copies of the redesigned plan.