MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING...MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Post...

MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

Post Tenure Review PoliciesNovember 2002

The Office of Academic Affairs3825 Ridgewood Road

Jackson, Mississippi 39211

MISSISSIPPI

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

November 1, 2002

Office of Academic Affairs

Dr. Thomas Layzell, CommissionerInstitutions of Higher Learning

Dear Commissioner:

In accordance with the Board of Trustees’ post-tenure review policy (403.0103),each university is required to submit to the Board Office a copy of its post-tenure reviewpolicy. The Board Office is charged with reviewing the policies and procedures forconsistency with Board policy and making modifications as appropriate.

The chief academic officers working with their faculty senates developed theuniversities’ post-tenure review policies. Each university, including all units of theUniversity of Mississippi Medical Center that employ tenured faculty, has submitted its post-tenure review policies to the Board Office for review. The Board Office has reviewed thepolicies and reports the following findings:

1. Delta State University’s post-tenure review policy has the following phrase:“Dismissal cannot be contemplated nor can the actions of the second committee beused as a substitute for a separate dismissal procedure, as the standard for dismissalremains that of adequate cause to be shown by the institution.” Board policy statesthat “The policies and procedures shall specify the consequences of unsatisfactoryperformance, including termination of service as provided in Section 403.0104.” Therefore, I have stricken the apparently inconsistent statement from Delta StateUniversity’s post-tenure review policy. In addition, the following phrase has alsobeen stricken: “ Lastly, post-tenure review will not be used as a means of dismissalor release from contract.”

2. Each university’s post-tenure review policy has a trigger based on a tenured facultymember receiving two or three unsatisfactory annual performance reviews. Oncetriggered, each university has a plan for assisting the tenured faculty member toimprove his or her performance.

3. Each August the Board will receive a report from the Board Office that summarizespost-tenure reviews.

I recommend that we accept the policies and procedures submitted for post-tenurereview as consistent with Board policy with amendments to Delta State University’s policyas indicated in this document.

If you have comments or questions, please share them with me.

Sincerely,

j|ÄÄ|tÅ XA `v[xÇÜçWilliam E. McHenry, Ph.D.Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs

403.0103 POST-TENURE REVIEW

1. Each institution shall have a post-tenure review process for all tenured faculty.Post-tenure review criteria shall be consistent with the institution's mission andpriorities.

2. Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be linked to annualreview policies and procedures. Institutional post-tenure review policies andprocedures may require a periodic review of all tenured faculty, a review ofindividual faculty triggered by one or more unsatisfactory annual reviews, or acombination of periodic and triggered reviews.

3. Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall provide for systematicand comprehensive assessments of performance, peer involvement in the post-tenurereview process, and opportunities for faculty development. The policies andprocedures shall specify the consequences of unsatisfactory performance,including termination of service as provided in Section 403.0104. The policies andprocedures shall provide for appeals by aggrieved faculty.

4. Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be filed with theCommissioner. The Commissioner shall review the policies and procedures forconsistency with Board policy and recommend modifications as appropriate.

5. Each institution shall prepare an annual report of post-tenure reviews. The reportshall be in a format specified by the Commissioner, and shall be submitted to theBoard by August 1 for the preceding academic year.

(BT Minutes, 4/2000)

1

University Post Tenure Review Comparisons

University Trigger Review Process Timeframe for Faculty Development Plan (FDP) Action Taken after FDP is CompletedASU Two

consecutiveunsatisfactoryevaluations.

1. Notice of review given to faculty member.2. Faculty member has 60 days to prepare and submit

portfolio.3. Ad hoc committee reviews portfolio and submits

faculty development plan, including timeline andnecessary resources to Dean within 45 days ofportfolio receipt.

4. The Dean will approve and communicate plan to thefaculty member.

1. Can be up to two years 1. If after two years, the faculty member has not shownimprovement in the identified areas of weaknessesand has not received a satisfactory rating, the deanwill recommend necessary sanctions to the VicePresident for Academic Affairs.

DSU Twoconsecutiveunsatisfactoryevaluations.

2. Notice of review given to faculty member. Tenureand Promotion Committee reviews prima facieevidence and, if concurs with unsatisfactory rating, awritten statement from the committee and the chairwill be provided within 10 days to the facultymember who may then attach comments,explanations, and rebuttals.

3. The Committee will collaborate with the facultymember and department chair to develop a facultydevelopment plan, including timeline and necessaryresources.

1. Can be up to two years with a third year forextenuating circumstances.

2. During the FDP period, meetings between thecommittee, the chair, and the faculty member willbe conducted no less than once per semester for thepurpose of evaluating progress. After each of themeetings, the faculty member will be provided awritten progress report.

1. After the specified time period has elapsed, the facultymember under review will have a final evaluation todetermine if the FDP objectives have been met.Within 30 days of the evaluation, the reviewcommittee will make a subsequent written report tothe faculty member, the department chair, and thedean. The committee can make one of tworecommendations: The faculty member has fulfilledthe FDP objectives and the review period has beencompleted with an overall satisfactory rating, or b) thefaculty member has continued performance deficitswhich must be addressed.

2. In the case of the latter recommendation, a second adhoc committee composed of three members from theUniversity Tenure and Promotions AppealsCommittee will be convened to consider andrecommend remedies which may includereassignment of duties, salary freeze, a leave ofabsence, or other appropriate measure. Committeerecommendations will be sent to the chair and thedean; it will be the responsibility of the dean toimpose the remedy or sanction.

University Trigger Review Process Timeframe for Faculty Development Plan (FDP) Action Taken after FDP is Completed

2

JSU Twounsatisfactoryevaluations ina five-yearperiod.

1. After receiving a second unsatisfactory evaluation,a 6-week appeal process is provided to the facultymember.

2. If appeal is denied, a Post Tenure Review PeerCommittee (PTRP) will be established. The PTRPCommittee will review the five previous annualperformance evaluation reports; the facultymember’s previous FDP (a FDP would have beeninstituted after the first unsatisfactory evaluation ofwhich there may be amendments and differentiatedworkload agreements); documentation ofachievements for the past five years; and any othermaterial the faculty member would like the unit toconsider. A report to the faculty member will bedeveloped.

3. The PTRP Committee will collaborate with thefaculty member and department chair to develop afaculty development plan, including timeline andnecessary resources.

1. Can be up to two years.2. At the conclusion of the FDP, either the faculty and

head of the department or the PTRP Committee willassess the progress of the faculty member andforward their conclusions to the dean. Afterconsultation with the School’s PTR Committee, thedean will determine whether the faculty member hasachieved the goals of the FDP and thus has returnedhis or her professional performance to the level ofcompetence.

1. Those who are judged to have achieved professionalcompetence (meeting expectations or better) willbegin a new cycle in the next academic year.

2. Those who are judged not to have achievedprofessional competence will face sanctions, includingthe possibility of revocation of tenure and dismissal.Copies of the FDP and the department’s assessment ofthe progress achieved by the end of the developmentperiod will be added to the faculty member’spersonnel file.

MSU Threeunsatisfactoryevaluations ina six-yearperiod orevery 6th year.

1. Once a dean has determined that there is primafacie evidence of low performance, he or she mayask the tenured faculty of the professor’s academicunit, holding rank at or above the level of thatprofessor, to empanel a post-tenure reviewcommittee, including at least one professor fromoutside the department, according to its ownprocedures.

2. The committee will conduct an informalinvestigation to determine whether there isevidence of low performance. It will followprocedures established by the tenured faculty ofthe department, interviewing the professor, thedepartment head, and any other parties whoseassistance it considers relevant. The committeewill have the same access to university records asis granted to the University Promotion and TenureCommittee.

3. If the committee finds that there is insufficientevidence of low performance or that there isevidence of insufficiently recognized merit, it willreport these findings to the dean.

4. If the committee finds that there is evidence of lowperformance, it will meet with the professor andthe department head to formulate a mutuallyacceptable FDP to extend over 1-3 years. Such aplan may include restructuring of the professor’sload, reassignment, retraining, or otherarrangements calculated to restimulate or refocusthe professor’ s energies.

1. Can be up to three years.2. The post-tenure review committee will monitor the

success of the development plan over its plannedduration and will render progress reports to the deanat least annually.

1. At the end of the development period (or earlier ifperformance has been raised to the level thecommittee targeted), the committee will report itsconclusions to the dean.


3

MUW Threeunsatisfactoryevaluations ina four-yearperiod.

1. The Division Promotion, Tenure, and Post TenureReview Committee (Division Committee) to meetand appraise the tenured faculty member accordingto the appropriate criteria.

2. If the Division Committee finds that there is notsubstantial evidence of a pattern of lowperformance and productivity or that there isevidence of insufficiently recognized merit, it willreport these finding to the Division Head, to theProvost and Vice President for Academic Affairs,and to the tenured faculty member.

3. If the Division Committee finds that there issubstantial evidence of a pattern of lowperformance and productivity, it will meet with thetenured faculty member and the Division Head toformulate a mutually acceptable plan ofdevelopment to extend over 1-3 years. The planwill clearly specify the improvement criteria andother arrangements calculated to restimulate orrefocus the faculty member’s energies.

4. A copy of the plan of development and the methodof evaluation will be filed with the Division Head,the Division Committee, and the Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs.

1. Can be up to 3 years.2. The Division Committee will monitor the success of

the development plan over its planned duration andwill render progress reports to the Division Headand Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs each fall and spring semester.

3. If the tenured faculty member does not agree to theplan of improvement or feels that issues of academicfreedom are involved, he or she may appeal from theDivision Committee to the University Committeewhich will act in an advisory capacity to the Provostand Vice President for Academic Affairs. TheUniversity Committee will conduct an informalinvestigation to determine whether there issubstantial evidence indicating the need forincreased development and productivity. TheUniversity Committee will appraise the tenuredfaculty member according to the appropriate criteria,and may interview the tenured faculty member, theDivision Head, and any other parties whoseassistance it considers relevant. The tenured facultymember will receive copies of all recommendationssent to the Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs. The University Committee mayrecommend to the Provost and Vice President forAcademic Affairs in writing that (1) there issatisfactory performance and that any proposeddevelopment plan should be terminated; (2) there issubstantial evidence of low performance andproductivity and the development plan may bemodified to the satisfaction of the UniversityCommittee; or (3) developmental assistance isineffective or is likely to become ineffective. TheUniversity Committee will explain its actions inwriting to the faculty member, the Division Head,the Division Committee and the Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs.

1. At the end of the development plan (or earlier ifperformance has been raised to a level that satisfiesthe Division Committee), the Committee willreport its conclusions to the Division Head and tothe Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs and the Committee will terminate oversightof the development plan and the faculty memberinvolved.

2. If the developmental assistance is determined tohave been ineffective, the Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs may invokesanctions, including recommending dismissal inaccordance with the policies of the Board ofTrustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.


4

MVSU Threeconsecutiveunsatisfactoryevaluations.

1. The Post Tenure Committee shall recommend tothe chair to initiate the post tenure reviewprocedure, with the concurrence of a majority ofthe tenured faculty in the department.

2. A mandatory post tenure improvement plan shallbe developed including a list of items to becompleted and available resources to accomplishthe listed tasks/activities.

3. The chair shall submit to the Post TenureCommittee an improvement plan for their reviewand approval. A final resolution shall be conductedby the Provost/Vice President for AcademicAffairs.

1. Can be up to 1.5 years.2. The chair shall submit to the Post Tenure Committee

the results of the post tenure improvement plan tothe Post Tenure Committee.

3. If they agree with the chair’s results, the Committeeshall submit the results to the Provost/Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs for approval and acceptance.The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs,shall provide a written statement to the President forfinal approval and acceptance of the Post TenureReview of the faculty member.

4. If the Committee disagrees with the chair’s report ofresults, the entire Post Tenure Review file, alongwith the committee’s recommendations, shall besubmitted to the Provost/Vice President forAcademic Affairs for final resolution. TheProvost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shallprovide a written statement to the President for finalapproval or disapproval of the post tenure review ofthe faculty member.

5. The President shall notify the faculty member as tothe preliminary outcome of the post tenure reviewprocess. The faculty member is entitled 30 days tosubmit to the President a rebuttal to any and all partsof the post tenure review process.

6. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairsshall be responsible for the resolution of all items ofrebuttals submitted and make recommendations tothe President for final approval and acceptance.

1. The President shall notify the facultymember as to the final outcome of the posttenure review process. The President shallinclude in his/her written statement one or acombination of the listed sanctions includedin this policy.

2. The tenured faculty member who fails tocorrect or complete their post tenureimprovement plan in the required timeperiod, with special exception, shall besubject to the following sanctions: Revocation of Tenure; Reduction inAcademic Rank and Salary; InvoluntaryLeave; and/or Termination of Employment.


5

UM Threeunsatisfactoryevaluations ina six-yearperiod.

1. After examining the prima facie documentation,the departmental faculty post-tenure reviewcommittee shall prepare a concise written reportassessing the faculty member’s performance. Thecommittee’s report shall include a notationindicating whether the faculty member’sperformance is judged to be satisfactory orunsatisfactory, a narrative text indicating therationale for the assessment, and a record of thecommittee’s vote. In the case of associateprofessors, the report shall also include guidanceon activities that would enhance prospects for asuccessful promotion review.

2. In the case of an unsatisfactory review, thecommittee and the faculty member’s Chair shall(after consultation with the appropriate unit head,dean, and faculty member) outline andcommunicate to the faculty member a formal,written plan for corrective action and professionaldevelopment. The FDP may include Universityresources to help the affected faculty memberenhance research efforts or retool teaching skills. Ifthe plan does include a requirement for additionalresources or a change in the faculty member’sassignment, this must be endorsed in writing by thepertinent administrator. The plan shall includeclearly-defined and specific goals, an outline ofand timetable for activities to be undertaken, andan agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

3.

1. Can be up to 3 years.2. Faculty members who receive unsatisfactory

post-tenure reviews (and whose unsatisfactoryreviews are upheld should they be appealed) shallbe reviewed again using the same procedure inthe third year following the initial review.

1. If the subsequent review results in a satisfactoryrating by the departmental faculty committee, theaffected faculty members post-tenure review clockwill be restarted at the beginning of a new 6-yearperiod.

2. If the subsequent review again yields anunsatisfactory rating (and this rating is upheld onappeal), the matter shall be forwarded to the Officeof the Provost for further appropriate action.

UMMC(dent)

Twounsatisfactoryevaluations ina three-yearperiod.

1. A written report of all unsatisfactory reviews willbe provided to the faculty member, with a copy tothe dean. Documentation for post tenure reviewmay include, but is not limited to, summaries ofthe annual reviews of the previous three years,student evaluations, and a statement from theperson under review describing his or hercontributions to the accomplishment of the missionand goals of the School of Dentistry.

2. The faculty member shall be reviewed by a TriadReview Committee which may recommend to thedean either a FDP be instituted or dismissal.

1. Can be up to 1 year. 2. If a subsequent unsatisfactory annual evaluation isreceived from the departmental chairperson,dismissal may be recommended by the chairpersonto the dean.

3. Once the cycle of post tenure review is initiated,two consecutive, annual satisfactory evaluationsmust he completed or dismissal of the reviewedfaculty member by the chairperson may berecommended to the dean.

4. Approval of a recommendation by the dean fordismissal of the reviewed faculty member shall beforwarded to the Vice Chancellor for HealthAffairs for appropriate action as stated in the UMCFaculty and Staff Handbook for dismissal oftenured faculty.


6

UMMC(med)

A secondconsecutive orthreeunsatisfactoryreviews in afive yearperiod

1. An Advisory Committee will be appointed by thechair to review the circumstances of theunsatisfactory reviews and will have 30 days tocomplete its task and to file its sealed report withthe chair.

2. The Committee will conduct one hearing with thefaculty member in question, one hearing with thedepartment chair and, if appropriate, a hearing withthe division director. It will review the facultymember’s previous evaluations and responses toprevious attempts at remediation. The Committeemay only make one of two recommendations to thechair: further remediation or dismissal. A majorityvote of the Advisory Committee will constitute thecommittee’s recommendation. However, the chairwill not be bound by the committee’srecommendation.

3. If the committee recommends further remediationand the chair agrees, the Advisory Committee maybe asked by the chair to assist in writing a FDP.

4. If the chair chooses further remediation, that actionshould also be reported to the Dean in writing. Ifthe chair recommends termination, the chair willmake a written recommendation to the Dean. Ineither case, the Advisory Committee’s reportshould be forwarded to the Dean.

1. Can be up to 1 year. 1. The Dean will review any recommendations fordismissal. If the Dean agrees with therecommendation, the Dean will appoint aninstitutional committee to review therecommendation as outlined in the FacultyHandbook.

UMMC (nur) Threeconsecutiveunsatisfactoryreviews.

2. The faculty member will supply a dossiercontaining annual reviews written by the facultywith essential supporting materials. Writtenreviews by the administrator, with previous plansfor improvement, will also be included in thematerials.

3. The outcome of the review will be an agreed uponFDP outlining how the deficiencies are to beremedied. The plan, including a time line, will beone that is agreed upon by the faculty, the reviewcommittee and the administrator(s).


7

UMMC(shrp)

Twounsatisfactoryevaluations ina three-yearperiod.

1. A written report of all unsatisfactory reviews willbe provided to the faculty member, with a copy tothe dean. Documentation for post tenure reviewmay include, but is not limited to, summaries ofthe annual reviews of the previous three years,student evaluations, and a statement from theperson under review describing his or hercontributions to the accomplishment of the missionand goals of the School of Health RelatedProfessions, particularly as they relate to teaching,scholarly activity, and service.

2. The faculty member shall be reviewed by a Schoolof Health Related Professions Review Committee.

3. The Committee may recommend that no furtheraction be taken; a FDP be instituted followed byre-evaluation of the faculty member by his/herdepartmental chairperson; referral of the review tothe Medical Center Academic Freedom andFaculty Responsibility Committee; or initiation ofdismissal procedures.

1. Can be up to 1 year. 1. If a subsequent unsatisfactory annual evaluation isreceived from the departmental chairperson, thechairperson may recommend dismissal to the dean.

2. Once the cycle of post tenure review is initiated,two consecutive, annual satisfactory evaluationsmust be completed or dismissal of the reviewedfaculty member by the chairperson may berecommended to the dean.

3. Approval of a Review Committee recommendationby the dean for further review by AcademicFreedom and Faculty Responsibility Committee orthe dismissal of the reviewed faculty member shallbe forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for HealthAffairs for appropriate action.


8

USM Twoconsecutiveunsatisfactoryreviews.

A. The department chair or school director will notifythe faculty member and dean that the reviewprocess should commence. The dean will notifythe faculty member if the dean is the immediatesupervisor for the faculty member. The dean willinitiate the review process unless there aresubstantive mitigating circumstances, including,but not limited to, serious illness. If the reviewprocess begins, and ad hoc committee composed ofthree members will convene over a two-yearperiod.

B. Within one month of the date of notification of theprofessional review, the faculty member willprepare and submit a portfolio that includes alldocuments, materials and statements that thefaculty member deems relevant and necessary. Allmaterials submitted by the faculty member willremain in the portfolio. Portfolios must include thecurrent annual evaluation; the annual evaluationfrom the two preceding years; the goals for each ofthose years, if goals are part of the annualevaluation process; a current curriculum vita;evidence of performance in teaching, scholarship,and service, and a proposed FDP. The departmentchair, program director, or dean may add otherpertinent information to the portfolio. Additionalmaterials may be added at any time during thereview process.

C. The review process will occur within two monthsafter the faculty member submits the initialportfolio. The review process will be based on thefaculty member’s specific role and responsibilitiesin the department as outlines in the goals approvedfor that faculty member, if such goals exist.

D. The FDP will indicate how specific deficiencies inthe performance of a faculty member, as indicatedby the review committee, will be corrected. Thefinal plan, to be approved by the dean, will bedeveloped by the faculty member in collaborationwith the chair (or director or dean, if there is nochair) and the review committee.

E. As a matter of due process, the faculty membershall have the right to meet with the reviewcommittee prior to its final recommendation. Thereview committee will specifically elaborate inwriting its finding concerning the facultymember’s FDP and will provide copies to thefaculty member, chair or director, and dean. Thefinal plan must be developed within two months ofthe recommendation to develop the FDP. The planmust be implemented the semester (generally FallSemester, following Spring evaluation) afterreceiving the report or deficiencies from the reviewcommittee.

A. Can be up to two years.B. The faculty member and department chair will meet

a minimum of one time each semester to review theprogress of the faculty member toward correction ofthe identified deficiencies. After each meeting, thedepartment chair will send a progress report to thefaculty member, dean, and review committee. Thefaculty member may request a review of progress bythe review committee, and the findings will beforwarded to the chair or director and dean.

A. When the objectives of the FDP have been met, asdetermined by the review committee thedepartment chair or school director will make afinal written report, including an overall rating forthe period of the plan, to the faculty member,review committee, and dean. The overall reportwill include ratings for teaching, service, andscholarship.

B. If after two years the faculty member has notshown improvement in the identified deficiencyareas and has not achieved an overall rating ofsatisfactory, a salary freeze of one year will beinitiated. A second, new committee, chosen in themanner of the review committee, will be formed toconsider additional sanctions. The secondcommittee will recommend sanctions to the chairand the dean. After appropriate consultation, it willbe the responsibility of the dean to imposesanctions. Appeals may be made through existingchannels for appeal of tenure decisions.

Alcorn State University 9

POST-TENURE REVIEW POLICIES

Alcorn State University

Principle and Goals

The faculty at Alcorn State University are engaged in a wide variety of scholarly activities, includingteaching, research and service. Tenured faculty represent the most intellectual resource at Alcorn StateUniversity and have a stake in fulfilling the university mission. The university can only fulfill its missionwhen its faculty have academic freedom; that is, freedom to pursue the truth without fear or pressure fromsources inside or outside the institution.

All faculty members at Alcorn State University (tenured and non-tenured) participate in an annualperformance evaluation. The annual evaluation considers the faculty member’s performance in the areasof teaching, research, service, and development. The evaluation process includes rating of faculty bystudents and a meeting with the faculty member’s immediate supervisor. A faculty performanceevaluation committee monitors the overall evaluation process, develops and maintains the evaluationinstrument, and recommends changes to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs.

Alcorn State University uses the evaluation process to not only review the performance of its faculty, butalso as an opportunity to improve the performance of its faculty. Non-tenured faculty who are on a tenuretrack are expected to view the process as an opportunity to find out if they are on the right track for beinggranted tenure and to obtain the advice, counseling, and support which will lead to the granting of tenure.Tenured faculty are expected to view the process as an indication of whether or not their performance ismeeting the standards expected of them and also as an opportunity to obtain the counseling and supportwhich is necessary to improve performance and productivity. The evaluation process is also used todetermine merit pay increases.

Post- tenure review at Alcorn State University is an ongoing process and is intended to encourageintellectual development and proficiency of faculty throughout their professional careers. The process issupported by institutional resources for professional development. The post-tenure review process atAlcorn State University is based upon a system of faculty evaluation that is intended to enhance andprotect guarantees of tenure and academic freedom.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Minimum Standards for Good Practice ofPost-Tenure Review shall be a part of Alcorn’s post-tenure review process and policy. The post-tenurereview process will incorporate the AAUP standards below:

1. Post-tenure review must ensure protection of academic freedom;

2. Post-tenure review must not be a re-evaluation or re-validation of tenured status;

3. Written standards and criteria by which faculty members are evaluated in post-tenure reviewshould be developed in consultation with the faculty and periodically reviewed by the facultyand Vice President for Academic Affairs. Faculty should also conduct the actual reviewprocess;

4. Post-tenure review should be developed and supported by institutional resources;

5. Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations at differentstages of a faculty member’s career;

Alcorn State University 10

6. The outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to appropriate college oruniversity persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated. They should be releasedonly at the discretion or consent of the faculty member;

7. Post-tenure review developmental efforts and plans, designed with the goal of restoring thefaculty member to productivity and satisfactory performance, cannot be imposed on the facultymember unilaterally, but must be a product of mutual negotiation;

8. A faculty member should have the right to comment in response to evaluations, and tochallenge the findings and correct the record by appeals to an elected faculty governancecommittee;

9. If post-tenure review developmental efforts and plans are unsuccessful, the administrationshould invoke peer [faculty] consideration regarding any contemplated sanctions, including, butnot limited to, termination of employment; and

10. The standard for dismissal or severe sanction remains that of adequate cause, and the mere factof successive negative reviews does not in any way diminish the obligation of the institution toshow such cause for dismissal in a separate forum before an appropriately constituted body ofpeers convened for that purpose.

Post-tenure Review Process

• The post-tenure review process begins with the annual faculty evaluation. When there are twoconsecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations or upon the request of the Vice President forAcademic Affairs, a post tenure review is initiated. A faculty development plan will then bedesigned by an ad hoc committee of three tenured faculty. The dean, the department chairperson andthe faculty shall each choose one member. When the committee is chosen, the dean will notify thefaculty that a post-tenure review process should begin. The dean will initiate the process and directthe Post-tenure review in consultation with the department person and the Vice President forAcademic Affairs.

• The faculty member will prepare a post-tenure review portfolio for the faculty review committee.The portfolio must be presented to the dean within 60 days after notification of the review processand will include:

- copy of current curriculum vitae;- copy of annual evaluation (three most recent);- copy of chair’s annual evaluations (three most recent);- copy of faculty member’s goals for each of those years;- concise summary from faculty summarizing accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research and service; andother information may be added by faculty member, department chairperson, dean or the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

• The committee will review the portfolio and present a concise written professional development planto the dean 45 days after receipt of portfolio materials. The professional development plan willoutline deficiencies defined by the committee and how specific deficiencies will be corrected. Theplan will include time lines and institutional resources necessary to support the plan.

• Upon receipt of the report from the committee, the department chairperson shall communicate inwriting the formal plan for corrective action and professional development. It will include clearlydefined goals and a time table.

Delta State University 11

• If after two years, the faculty member has not shown improvement in the identified areas ofweaknesses and has not received a satisfactory rating, the dean will recommend necessary sanctionsto the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Delta State University

Preamble

The strength and vitality of the professorate is the foundation of Delta State University’s excellence in theareas of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service. As an intellectual resource, the tenured faculty of theUniversity are expected to maintain a sustained level of performance and productivity in the fulfillment ofthose responsibilities. After the granting of tenure, evaluation of faculty continues through annualassessments, a procedure already in practice within the University.

The goal of post-tenure review should be to foster faculty development and professional skills for atenured faculty member whose level of performance may have decreased over a period of time. Post-tenure review is not a mechanism for the re-evaluation of tenure and academic freedom, an attempt toalter the nature of tenure as it is traditionally defined by the academic community, nor is it a disciplinaryprocedure and, therefore, not appropriate for use in cases of malfeasance, dereliction, contumacy, orcriminality. Lastly, post-tenure review will not be used as a means of dismissal or release from contract.A post-tenure review will not impede autonomous inquiry and development, nor uninhibited scholarshipand instruction as these are privileges accorded all faculty at The University. The post-tenure review is apro-active process with institutional assistance to a faculty member so that university standards andscholarly productivity are maintained and/or restored. Its purpose is for taking stock of accomplishments,defining current and future directions, and providing the development and implementation of formalprofessional procedures. A tenured professor undergoing a post-tenure review is not expected to remakehis or her case nor resume the burden of proof that he or she bore in the original tenure proceedings. Theburden of proof for cause is retained by the University’s administration rather than shifted to theindividual faculty member. The post-tenure review allows substantive due process of individual facultymembers with due process remaining under control of the faculty.

Through appropriate and considered use of post-tenure review as a vehicle for refocusing facultyperformance, the university will be strengthened as an institution of learning.

Procedures

A post-tenure review is linked to the annual performance evaluation as defined by the criteria developedby each department or academic unit. A review will be conducted when there is evidence of an overallunsatisfactory performance for two consecutive years. A mutually-acceptable faculty development plandesigned by the departmental/academic unit’s Tenure and Promotion Committee, the departmental chair,and the faculty member will be implemented within a specified time period.

1. The review process will commence when the department chair informs the faculty member andthe dean of the school/college in writing that a post-tenure review is to be implemented. In thecase where a dean is the immediate supervisor of a faculty member, the dean will notify andinitiate the review process with the faculty member.

2. The post-tenure review process will take place in the tenure home of the faculty member andwill be conducted by the departmental/academic unit’s internal Tenure and PromotionCommittee. In a case where there is not a sufficient number of committee members from withinthe departmental unit, the procedure for organizing such a committee as defined in the Tenureand Promotion Policy will be used.

Delta State University 12

3. Within 30 days of notification, the review committee will review the prima facie evidence oflow performance. If the committee does not concur with the department chair’s overallunsatisfactory rating or if there is evidence of insufficiently recognized merit, the reviewprocess ceases and the faculty member is presumed to be performing satisfactorily. If thecommittee concurs with the department chair’s overall unsatisfactory rating, a written statementfrom the committee and the chair will be provided within 10 days to the faculty member whomay then attach comments, explanations, and rebuttals.

4. The review committee, the department chair, and the faculty member under review willcollaborate in the drafting of a Faculty Development Plan, a copy of which will be submitted tothe dean. The plan will include definite steps to remedy the specific perceived deficiencieswithin a period of no more than two years, with an optional third year for extenuatingcircumstances.

5. The Faculty Development Plan (FDP) is to be individualized and must include, a) the specificdeficiencies found, b) specific goals to correct the deficiencies, c) activities to achieve thegoals, d) specified time period for accomplishment of activities, e) criteria for assessment ofprogress based on Tenure Policy criteria, and f) identification of institutional resources insupport of the plan, which may include peer mentoring, counseling, or training to facilitateprofessional growth. The FDP must be developed within 60 days of committee notification ofreview and implemented during the next semester following the plan’s approval by the dean.

6. During the review period, meetings between the committee, the chair, and the faculty memberwill be conducted no less than once per semester for the purpose of evaluating progress. Aftereach of the meetings, the faculty member will be provided a written progress report.

7. After the specified time period has elapsed, the faculty member under review will have afinal evaluation to determine if the FDP objectives have been met. Within one month of theevaluation, the review committee will make a subsequent written report to the faculty member,the department chair, and the dean. The committee can make one of two recommendations:

a) The faculty member has fulfilled the FDP objectives and the review period has beencompleted with an overall satisfactory rating, or b) the faculty member has continuedperformance deficits which must be addressed.

8. In the case of the latter recommendation, a second ad hoc committee composed of threemembers from the University Tenure and Promotions Appeals Committee will be convened.The committee will be chosen as follows: one member each chosen by the faculty member, thedepartment chair, and the dean. Should a faculty member from the initial departmental reviewcommittee be asked to serve on the ad hoc committee, that individual is expected to recuse himor herself from service. The second ad hoc review committee will consider and recommendremedies which may include reassignment of duties, salary freeze, a leave of absence, or otherappropriate measure. Committee recommendations will be sent to the chair and the dean; it willbe the responsibility of the dean to impose the remedy or sanction. Dismissal cannot becontemplated nor can the actions of the second committee be used as a substitute for a separatedismissal procedure, as the standard for dismissal remains that of adequate cause to be shownby the institution.

Jackson State University 13

Jackson State University

Introduction

The purpose of this administrative policy statement is to recommend to the Board of Trustees forMississippi Institutions of Higher Learning a process for Post-tenure Review (PTR) to be implemented atJackson State University. This policy is consistent with the principles of promotion and tenure outlined inJackson State’s Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures.

Tenure is defined as continuing employment that may be granted to a faculty member after a probationaryperiod upon nomination by the Institutional Executive Officer for election by the Board (BOT Policiesand Bylaws, Section 403.01): PTR is a procedure that will provide the opportunity for continued peerevaluation of faculty every five years after tenure is awarded.

A. Statement of Administrative Policies

1. The purpose of Post-Tenure Review (PTR) is to: (1) facilitate continued faculty developmentand enhancement, consistent with the academic needs and goals of Jackson State Universityand the most effective use of institutional resources; and (2) ensure professional accountabilityby a regular comprehensive evaluation of every tenured faculty member’s performance.

2. The PTR evaluation will be conducted by a PTR Peer Committee made up of appropriatedepartmental faculty peers or faculty from an appropriate school. Other departments may beconsulted as appropriate. Jackson State has developed procedures for peer evaluation duringPTR (outlined herein); and for appeals of the PTR evaluation. Each faculty member shall beinformed in writing of the results of the evaluation by the head of the department.

3. If PTR procedures (of schools and departments) exist, these must be amended to conform tothis administrative statement and amended procedures must be approved by the appropriatedean and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

4. PTR will evaluate faculty performance in teaching, research/creative work, and service—thesame areas of professional competence and achievement that are used in tenure and promotionreviews and in annual evaluations. The department’s written standards for reappointment,tenure, and promotion describe the nature and measures of achievement in teaching,research/creative work, and service within the discipline (as required by BT Policies andBylaws, Sections 402.03 and 403.0101, BT 3/91, 2/98) that should be employed in PTRevaluations. Departments may revise their written standards to include guidelines/descriptionsof “meeting expectations”—the standard of acceptable professional performance.

5. The annual evaluation remains the basic tool to evaluate faculty performance. The level ofPTR— Regular or Extensive — will be determined by annual “Performance Ratings ofFaculty.” Because an annual performance rating summary is the document that may trigger anExtensive Review, faculty who do not agree with their annual performance ratings may appealthe rating through established grievance procedures.


B. Types of Review

1. Regular Review

a. Faculty who have achieved annual performance ratings of “meeting expectations”or bettersince the last PTR (or since receiving tenure if undergoing the first PTR) will undergoRegular Review, as will faculty who have received a single “below expectations” annualperformance rating in the five-year review cycle.

However, faculty who receive an annual performance rating of “below expectations” arerequired to meet with the PTR Peer Committee to identify the causes of the unsatisfactoryevaluation and to plan and implement a written Performance Improvement Agreement(PIA) to remedy the problems as soon as the “below expectations” evaluation is received.(See section B.2)

b. In a Regular Review, the department’s PTR Peer Committee examines the five previousannual performance evaluation reports and the faculty member’s Professional Plan (annualgoals and objectives) from that PTR cycle. In addition, the faculty member will provide thecommittee with documentation of achievements for the past five years and an updatedProfessional Plan for the next year or five years.

2. The Performance Improvement Agreement

a. Faculty who receive a “below expectations” annual summary rating as a result of theirannual performance must participate in developing and implementing a PerformanceImprovement Agreement (PIA) designed to improve their performance. Of course, afaculty member may appeal the “below expectations” rating to the department head and/ordean and subsequently to the School PTR Committee. No action will be taken to begin aPIA until this appeal process, if invoked, is completed. This appeal process should becompleted within six weeks or less.

b. Working with the PTR Peer Committee, the faculty member develops a PIA that includesspecific goals, time lines, and benchmarks that shall be used to measure progress at periodicintervals. Usually, PIAs will be established for one year. However, if research deficiencieswarrant a longer period, the PIA may be set up for two years.

c. If the goals of the PIA are being/have been met, as evidenced in the next annualperformance evaluation, the faculty member continues in the regular five-year post-tenurecycle.

d. If the goals of the PIA are not being/have not been met at the next annual performanceevaluation, an extensive review process shall be initiated.

3. Extensive Review

a. Faculty who have received two “below expectations” ratings within the previous five yearswill undergo Extensive Review. As soon as a faculty member receives a second rating of“below expectations” (within a five-year period) he or she will be subject to ExtensiveReview. A faculty member may appeal the “below expectations” evaluation to thedepartment head and/or dean and subsequently to the School PTR Committee. No actionwill be taken to begin an Extensive Review until this appeal process, if invoked, iscompleted. This appeal process should be completed within six weeks or less.


b. Because Extensive Review is designed to assist faculty who are falling below the level ofsatisfactory professional performance, it takes place whenever a faculty member establishesa pattern of unsatisfactory performance, i.e., two evaluations of performance “belowexpectations” in a five-year period. The University, faculty member, department, andstudents all benefit from promptly addressing emerging deficiencies in faculty professionalperformance,

c. For an Extensive Review, the PTR Peer Committee will examine: (1) the five previousannual performance evaluation reports; (2) the faculty member’s previous Professional Plan(and any amendments to the plan, and differentiated workload agreements, where present);(3) documentation of achievements for the past five years; and (4) any other material thefaculty member would like the unit to consider.

d. The PTR Peer Committee prepares an evaluative report of the faculty member’s teaching,research/creative work, and service based upon its review of the materials and informationcovering the period in question. If there is disagreement about the faculty member’sperformance in research/creative work, or if the faculty member under review or thedepartment so requests, the review will also include evaluations from qualified personsexternal to the University. In this case, the faculty member and the department shall join todevelop a list of external reviewers who will be asked to evaluate the faculty member’sperformance in research/creative work.

C. The Development Plan

1. Upon completion of the evaluative report (see Section B.3-d), the faculty member, workingwith the PTR Committee, shall write a Development Plan for the next one or two years withspecific goals and actions designed to address the areas of deficiency identified in the ExtensiveReview process. The Development Plan must address the teaching, research/creative work, andservice assignments anticipated during the period of the plan. It must describe performancegoals in light of identified deficiencies, strategies for improvement, and the time frame (up totwo years) in which the problems are to be solved. The Plan must contain definite means ofmeasuring progress in achieving the goals and periodic monitoring of progress. TheDevelopment Plan must be approved by the department head, following consultation with thePTR Peer Committee. Notably, it is incumbent on the University to provide the necessaryresources to achieve the goals of the Development Plan.

2. While the individual faculty member is responsible ultimately for the successful outcome of theDevelopment Plan, the department has an obligation to assist the faculty member who seeksguidance in developing a realistic plan to remedy the identified areas of deficiency.

3. Assessments of professional competence depend upon peer review. At the conclusion of theDevelopment Plan, either (1) the faculty and head of the department or (2) the PTR PeerCommittee will assess the progress of the faculty member and forward their conclusions to thedean. After consultation with the School PTR Committee, the dean will determine whether thefaculty member has achieved the goals of the Development Plan and thus has returned his orher professional performance to the level of competence. Those who are judged to haveachieved professional competence (meeting expectations or better) will begin a new PTR cyclein the next academic year. Those who are judged not to have achieved professional competencewill face sanctions, including the possibility of revocation of tenure and dismissal. Copies ofthe Extensive Review Development Plan and the department’s assessment of the progressachieved by the end of the development period will be added to the faculty member’s personnelfile.


D. Outcomes of Review

1. RewardsFaculty members who have achieved annual performance ratings of “exceeding expectations”or better since the last PTR (or since receiving tenure if undergoing the first PTR) shall receivemerit salary increases exceeding the average annual salary increases granted by the BT. Theyshall also be the primary faculty to serve on departmental PTR Peer Committees.

Full professors who have achieved annual performance ratings of “outstanding” everyyear since the last PTR (or since receiving tenure if undergoing the first PTR) shall berecommended for the rank of “Distinguished Professor” in addition to annual merit salaryincreases. Such rewards are to be granted only to individuals who possess exceptionalprofessional qualifications and achievements.

2. SanctionsIn cases where the Development Plan (drawn up as a result of the Extensive Reviewprocess, see Section C.1) has not produced the desired results, sanctions shall beimposed. Each campus shall establish a schedule of sanctions appropriate to itsenvironment and calibrated to various levels of performance deficiency. Adesignated faculty committee shall recommend sanctions. The President makes thefinal determination of sanctions. If the President’s decision is to recommend to theBoard of Trustees revocation of tenure and dismissal of the faculty member, the BTPolicies and Bylaws provide the faculty member with an opportunity for a hearingand set other conditions for handling such cases. (See BT Policies and Bylaws,Section 403.0103-2; and BT Minutes, 3/91; 2/98).

Professional incompetence is defined to mean the failure to perform teaching, research/creativeworks, and service duties in a consistent and satisfactory professional manner. A judgment ofprofessional incompetence is based upon peer review of the faculty member’s performance.The PTR process provides such peer review. (Other causes for dismissal also exist and areoutlined in Section 403.0103-1 of the BT Policies and Bylaws.)

Revocation of tenure and dismissal for the cause of demonstrable professionalincompetence has long been recognized policy at the Mississippi Institutions of HigherLearning and across higher education in the United States.

E. Assessment of PTR

The Vice President for Academic Affairs, having consulted with faculty and campusadministrators, shall report to the Board through the President on the effectiveness of therevised PTR process. After two complete years of implementation, if serious problems areidentified, they should be remedied at that time. Thereafter, assessments of the effectiveness ofthe PTR process will be made at the discretion of the Board of Trustees.

F. Procedures for PTR

During a regular review, The PTR Peer Committee will write a brief report summarizing theirfindings regarding the faculty member’s adherence to the previous Professional Plan(s) (taking intoaccount the differentiated workload, where present) and conclusions about his or her productivityand contributions to the University in teaching, research/creative works, and service. This report willbe forwarded to the dean, who will report to the Vice President for Academic Affairs on the results


of all the post-tenure reviews in the school. A copy of the PTR report will be placed in the facultymember’s personnel file.

When an extensive PTR is required, it must be thorough and well documented, since the decisionthat is made is of far-reaching importance both to the individual and to the University. Resultantly,the following levels of evaluation will be conducted:

1. Department Level

a. The Departmental PTR Peer Committee shall consist of three (3) members. It will includetenured faculty in the candidate’s department who have achieved annual performanceratings of “exceeding expectations” or better since the past PTR, excluding thedepartmental chairperson.

b. Departments with less than the appropriate number of tenured faculty for the department’sPTR Peer Committee will have departmental faculty to elect annually the additional tenuredfaculty needed from closely-related disciplines.

c. The senior tenured faculty member from the applicant’s department will serve as committeechair.

d. The candidate distributes his/her application and documentation to the committee chair,who will distribute it to the committee members.

e. A committee meeting will be held for the announced purpose of discussing the PTRpackage of the candidate and for voting on the recommendation to continue tenure. A voteis taken at that meeting.

f. The chair of the Departmental PTR Peer Committee will forward to the Departmental Chairthe results of the Committee’s vote.

g. The Departmental Chair will then review the file and make his/her recommendation.

h. The Departmental Chair shall forward all recommendations of the Departmental PTR PeerCommittee along with his/her recommendations to the dean.

2. School Level

After the departmental review is completed, the decision is reviewed at the school level by theSchool PTR Committee and the dean.

a. The School PTR Committee shall consist of four (4) to seven (7) members none of whichcan be members of the Departmental PTR Peer Committee.

b. The Associate or Assistant Dean shall serve as chair of the committee.

c. The committee shall consist of one tenured faculty member elected annually from eachdepartment within the school,

(1) Schools with large numbers of departments (which would cause the tenure committeeto be too large) will have tenured school faculty to elect the appropriate number oftenured school faculty to serve on the school committee.


(2) Careful attention should be given to electing tenured faculty from a representativesample of disciplines within the school.

(3) Schools with less than the appropriate number of tenured faculty for the School PTRcommittee will have the school faculty to elect (annually) the additional tenuredfaculty needed from closely related disciplines.

d. A committee meeting will be held for the announced purpose of discussing the tenurepackage of the candidate and for voting on the recommendation for tenure. A vote is takenat that meeting.

e. The chair of the School PTR Committee shall forward all recommendations of theCommittee to the dean.

3. The Dean of the School reviews the file and makes a recommendation to the Office of the VicePresident for Academic Affairs for review by the University PTR Committee, which is chairedby an Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs.

4. The University PTR Committee reviews the tenure file and submits a report to theVice President for Academic Affairs.

a. The University PTR Committee consists of one tenured faculty member elected annuallyfrom each school, the members of which serve as University rather than schoolrepresentatives.

b. The responsibility of the University PTR Committee is to insure that the tenure policy,procedures, and administrative guidelines have been observed uniformly throughout theUniversity.

c. If the University PTR Committee determines that policy, procedures, or guidelines have notbeen properly followed, it will return the recommendation to the appropriate agency forreconsideration. Those found to be in keeping with policy, procedures, and administrativeguidelines will be returned by the Committee to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

d. The University PTR Committee is not a recommending agency at the procedural reviewlevel.

5. The Vice President for Academic Affairs makes a recommendation to the President.

6. The President will make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees of State Institutions ofHigher Learning, and will inform the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Dean of theSchool, the Departmental Chair and the candidate of his/her recommendation. The extension oftenure is not final until a written notice of extension has been actually received by the candidatefrom the President.

G. Documentation for PTR

The primary responsibility for preparing a dossier to be considered by a faculty committee forPTR rests with the candidate, but the departmental chairperson will provide appropriateassistance. The candidate is responsible for the collection of the following documentationwhere appropriate:


1. A complete curriculum vitae of the candidate containing information of past educational andprofessional experience and a bibliography of published work.

2. Documentation of successful teaching in the form of student course evaluations for eachprobationary year; annual evaluation by chairpersons; course syllabi and other materials; anddescription of courses taught.

3. Copies of the most relevant publications, indicating if they were peer reviewed.

4. Evidence of grants, awards, certificates, and fellowships received.

5. Evidence of exhibitions, concerts, or other forms of creative activity.

6. Evidence of participation in professional conferences, invited symposia, and invited seminars.

7. Evidence of participation in reviewing manuscripts, grants, etc.

8. Evidence of participation in professional societies.

9. Evidence of service to the department, the school or college, the university, and the community.

H. Timetable for PTR

1. By September 15, the Departmental Chairperson will notify each tenured facultybeing evaluated and present to the Departmental PTR Peer Committee a list offaculty in the Department. Should the faculty member disagree for reasons ofeligibility with his/her inclusion on or exclusion from the list submitted by theChairperson of the Departmental PTR Peer Committee, he/she may appeal this issueto the Dean no later than September 25. The Dean, in consultation with the Office ofAcademic Affairs, will make the determinative judgment.

2. By October 1, faculty being reviewed will submit PTR folders (with applications andsupportive materials) to the Department Chair who will forward PTR folders alongwith copies of annual performance reviews for each year since receipt of tenure orlast PTR to the Chair of the Departmental PTR Peer Committee. Any specificguidelines or other relevant information from the Offices of the President, the VicePresident for Academic Affairs, the Dean, or the Departmental Chairperson will beincluded in this submission.

3. By October 15, the Chair of the Departmental PTR. Peer Committee will forward DepartmentalPTR Peer Committee recommendations along with all materials in the PTR folder andappropriately signed forms to the Departmental Chairperson who will prepare a specificrecommendation for each tenured faculty being reviewed.

4. By November 1, the Departmental Chairperson will forward recommendations, appropriatelysigned forms and complete PTR folders to the Chair of the School PTR Committee.

5. By December 1, the Chair of the School PTR Committee will forward to the Dean of theSchool the recommendations of the School PTR Committee accompanied by those of the twoprevious PTR recommending units and the PTR folders for each tenured faculty beingreviewed.


6. By January 1, the School Dean will forward to the Vice President for Academic Affairs his/herrecommendations and all PTR recommendations for the prior PTR recommending units alongwith complete PTR folder for each tenured faculty being reviewed.

7. By February 1, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will forward PTR folders to theUniversity PTR Committee for procedural review.

8. The University PTR Committee will return folders to the Vice President for Academic Affairsfor substantive review and recommendations by February 1.

9. If the recommendation(s) of the Vice President for Academic Affairs is positive, he or she willforward the recommendation(s) to the President by March 1. If the Vice President forAcademic Affair’s initial decision is contrary to the recommendation of the department chairand dean, he or she will hold a meeting with the department chair and dean concerned prior tothe Vice President making his or her final decision. Following this review, a recommendationfrom the Vice President for Academic Affairs will be made. If the recommendation of the VicePresident for Academic Affairs is negative, the Vice President for Academic Affairs shallinform the candidate and appropriate units of his/her recommendation in writing, and, onrequest by the faculty member shall provide the reasons in writing which contributed to his orher recommendation.

10. The faculty member must request these reasons within five (5) work days of receiptof the notice of a negative recommendation. The Vice President must respond withinfive (5) work days of receipt of the faculty members written request.

11. The faculty member should have an opportunity to discuss the negativerecommendation and reason therefor with Vice President for Academic Affairs priorto appealing the negative recommendation to the Tenure and Promotion and AppealsCommittee.

I. Notification

When an extension of tenure is granted, notice of such action will be sent by the President ofthe University to the individual, the chairperson of his/her department, his/her dean and theVice President for Academic Affairs.

Any faculty member who is recommended for revocation of tenure may be notified in writingthat he/she will be employed for only one (1) additional year.

J. Appeal

If the Vice President for Academic Affairs recommends that the candidate receives revocationof tenure, the candidate may appeal that decision to the Tenure Promotion and AppealCommittee. The grounds for appeal shall be limited to:

1. Violations of established procedures;

2. Actions were arbitrary or capricious, or were predicated upon grounds which violateacademic freedom, or the evaluative criteria for awarding tenure;

3. Constitutional rights.

Mississippi State University 21

The faculty member may initiate an appeal by requesting in writing a hearing at the levelof the Vice President for Academic Affairs (with notification also being sent to the schoolDean) not later than five (5) work days after receipt of the Vice President’s reason(s) forthe negative recommendation. If the faculty member does not request the reason(s) for theVice President’s negative recommendation, then he/she must initiate an appeal within five(5) days after receipt of the official notification letter. The request must be written and setforth the basis for the appeal together with a statement of supporting facts.

The request for a hearing must be made to the chair of the Tenure and Promotion and AppealsCommittee (with a copy of the request sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs), whoshall convene the Tenure and Promotion Appeals Committee to investigate the matter, andafford the employee an opportunity to present information and evidence pertinent to thehearing. (See Supplement A. Tenure and Promotion Appeals Committee and Procedures foradditional information).

Mississippi State University

Principles

The faculty and the administration of Mississippi State University recognize the importance ofencouraging all professors to maintain appropriate levels of productivity in teaching, research, andservice. Accordingly, evaluation of the performance of the faculty does not cease with the granting oftenure, but continues with formal annual assessments of all components of a professor’s assignment.

The grant of tenure is the academic community’s chief guarantee of academic freedom – both the freedomof the teacher to teach and the freedom of the researcher to research without undue or inappropriateexternal pressures. Thus it is ultimately a guarantee of the student’s freedom to learn. Nothing in thisprocedure should be construed as an attempt to alter the contractual relationship between the professorand the university or to alter the nature of tenure as traditionally conceived and legally defined in theAmerican academic community.

Nor is this procedure intended as a mechanism for reevaluating or revalidating the grant of tenure. Thus atenured professor cannot be required to remake his or her case for tenure or otherwise to reassume theburden of proof that he or she bore in the original tenure proceedings.

This procedure is intended solely for assessing cases in which a tenured professor’s level of performancemay have decreased over a sustained period and for exploring ways in which that level of performancemight be improved by a mutually agreed-on plan of development.

This procedure is not disciplinary and thus is not appropriate for reviewing cases of alleged malfeasance,dereliction, contumacy, or criminality.

This procedure does not contemplate dismissal as a final sanction and thus cannot be used as a substitutefor a separate and formal dismissal procedure. If at any time, the administration believes that a tenuredfaculty member’s level of performance is so low that continued employment would be a detriment to theuniversity’s mission, then it is appropriate for it to institute formal dismissal hearings, with full facultyparticipation, under a procedure specifically dedicated to the matter of dismissal.

Mississippi University for Women 22

Procedures

Comprehensive annual evaluations are conducted in the academic unit (in most cases, the department) inwhich the professor resides. These evaluations are annually reviewed by the dean. It is customary andappropriate that these evaluations lead to rewards or sanctions in the form of raises, assignments, andmaterial or financial support for research.

In every sixth year following the grant of tenure or following the most recent post-tenure promotion, theannual reviews of each tenured professor will again be reviewed by the dean to determine whether there iscumulative prima facie evidence of low performance. The dean may also conduct such a review at anypoint within this period when routine review of annual evaluations suggests a sustained pattern (normallythree years) of low performance, or when other evidence suggests a marked decline in performance.

Once a dean has determined that there is prima facie evidence of low performance, he or she may ask thetenured faculty of the professor’s academic unit, holding rank at or above the level of that professor, toempanel a post-tenure review committee, including at least one professor from outside the department,according to its own procedures. The committee will conduct an informal investigation to determinewhether there is evidence of low performance. It will follow procedures established by the tenured facultyof the department, interviewing the professor, the department head, and any other parties whoseassistance it considers relevant. The committee will have the same access to university records as isgranted to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.

If the committee finds that there is insufficient evidence of low performance or that there is evidence ofinsufficiently recognized merit, it will report these findings to the dean.

If the committee finds that there is evidence of low performance, it will meet with the professor and thedepartment head to formulate a mutually acceptable plan of development to extend over 1-3 years. Such aplan may include restructuring of the professor’s load, reassignment, retraining, or other arrangementscalculated to restimulate or refocus the professor’ s energies.

The post-tenure review committee will monitor the success of the development plan over its plannedduration and will render progress reports to the dean at least annually. At the end of the developmentperiod (or earlier if performance has been raised to the level the committee targeted), the committee willreport its conclusions to the dean.

Mississippi University for Women

Principles

1. The Faculty of Mississippi University for Women recognize as a matter of professionalresponsibility the importance of all tenured faculty continuing to develop productively inteaching, research, and service. Accordingly, evaluation of the teaching, research and serviceof a tenured faculty member does not cease with the granting of tenure and the presumption ofmerit that tenure entails, but continues with annual review of all components of a tenuredfaculty member’s assignment which are used for the improvement of the tenured faculty and itseducational mission. Post-tenure review at MUW should not be compared to that of any otherinstitution. Post-tenure review at MUW will depend on the characteristics of MUW; its size, itsmission, and its tenured faculty, as well as on the resources that it can bring to bear in the areaof tenured faculty development.


2. This procedure is intended for assessing cases in which a tenured faculty member’s level ofperformance may have decreased over a sustained period and for improving that level ofperformance.

3. The grant of tenure is the academic community’s chief guarantee of academic freedom. Underno circumstances shall annual review or post-tenure review impinge upon academic freedom.

4. To gain tenure, a faculty member at Mississippi University for Women normally goes through afive to seven year probationary period to establish his/her eligibility for tenure. The lengthydemonstration of competence that precedes the award of tenure is required precisely so thattenured faculty are not recurrently at risk and are afforded the professional autonomy andintegrity essential to academic quality.

5. Nothing in this procedure should be construed as an attempt to alter the contractual relationshipbetween the tenured faculty member and the university or to alter the nature of tenure astraditionally conceived and legally defined in the American academic community. Nor is thisprocedure intended as a mechanism for reevaluating or revalidating the grant of tenure. Thus atenured faculty member cannot be required to remake his or her case for tenure or otherwise toreassume the burden of proof that he or she bore in the original tenure proceedings.

6. Post-tenure review is not undertaken for the sole purpose of dismissal. Formal, well-settleddisciplinary procedures in P.S. 3528 exist for that purpose. Tenured faculty members are subjectto termination for (1) financial exigencies, (2) termination or reduction of programs, academic oradministrative units as approved by the Board, (3) malfeasance, (4) inefficiency, (5)contumacious conduct, or (6) for cause. (IHL Policy 403.0104)

7. Post-tenure review is not intended to discourage controversy, risk-taking, induce self-censorshipor in general interfere with the conditions that make innovative teaching, research, scholarship,service and administration possible.

8. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the tenured faculty member under reviewdischarges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associatedwith his or her position.

Procedures

Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty

1. The Division Head will conduct annual review for all tenured faculty within the Division. Whenthere have been at least three unsatisfactory reviews, over a four-year period, the Division Headmay ask the Division Promotion, Tenure, and Post Tenure Review Committee (DivisionCommittee) to meet and appraise the tenured faculty member according to the appropriatecriteria, including teaching/advising, scholarship/professional development, and university andcommunity service.

2. The Division Committee will conduct an informal investigation to determine whether there issubstantial evidence indicating the need for increased development and productivity. TheDivision Committee will appraise the tenured faculty member according to the appropriatecriteria, and may interview the tenured faculty member, the Division Head, and any other partieswhose assistance it considers relevant. The committee will have the same access to universityrecords as is granted to the University Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review Committee


(University Committee). The University Committee will be chaired by a member elected by theCommittee. Should there be insufficient members within a division for membership on theDivision Committee, tenured faculty members from other divisions may be used.

3. If the Division Committee finds that there is not substantial evidence of a pattern of lowperformance and productivity or that there is evidence of insufficiently recognized merit, it willreport these finding to the Division Head, to the Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs, and to the tenured faculty member.

4. If the Division Committee finds that there is substantial evidence of a pattern of lowperformance and productivity, it will meet with the tenured faculty member and the DivisionHead to formulate a mutually acceptable plan of development to extend over 1-3 years. Theplan will clearly specify the improvement criteria and other arrangements calculated torestimulate or refocus the faculty member’s energies.

5. A copy of the plan of development and the method of evaluation will be filed with the DivisionHead, the Division Committee, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

6. The Division Committee will monitor the success of the development plan over its plannedduration and will render progress reports to the Division Head and Provost and Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs each fall and spring semester. At the end of the development plan (orearlier if performance has been raised to a level that satisfies the Division Committee), theCommittee will report its conclusions to the Division Head and to the Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs and the Committee will terminate oversight of the developmentplan and the faculty member involved. If the developmental assistance is determined to havebeen ineffective, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may invoke sanctions,including recommending dismissal in accordance with the policies of the Board of Trustees ofState Institutions of Higher Learning.

7. If the tenured faculty member does not agree to the plan of improvement or feels that issues ofacademic freedom are involved, he or she may appeal from the Division Committee to theUniversity Committee which will act in an advisory capacity to the Provost and Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs. The University Committee will conduct an informal investigation todetermine whether there is substantial evidence indicating the need for increased developmentand productivity. The University Committee will appraise the tenured faculty memberaccording to the appropriate criteria, and may interview the tenured faculty member, theDivision Head, and any other parties whose assistance it considers relevant. The tenured facultymember will receive copies of all recommendations sent to the Provost and Vice President forAcademic Affairs. The University Committee may recommend to the Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs in writing that (1) there is satisfactory performance and that anyproposed development plan should be terminated; (2) there is substantial evidence of lowperformance and productivity and the development plan may be modified to the satisfaction ofthe University Committee; or (3) developmental assistance is ineffective or is likely to becomeineffective. The University Committee will explain its actions in writing to the faculty member,the Division Head, the Division Committee and the Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs.

8. The University Committee will monitor the success fo the development plan, includingrendering progress reports each fall and spring semester for the stated period of time. At the endof the development plan (or earlier if performance has been raised to a level that satisfies theUniversity Committee), the Committee will report its conclusions to the Division Head and tothe Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Committee will terminate


oversight of the development plan and the faculty member involved. If the developmentalassistance is determined to have been ineffective, the Provost and Vice President for AcademicAffairs may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with policies ofthe Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

9. If the faculty member rejects the written improvement plan recommended by the UniversityCommittee, the Committee shall report the rejection to the Division Committee, to the DivisionHead, and to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The faculty member shallhave the opportunity to provide written rationale for the rejection. The Provost and VicePresident for Academic Affairs may refer the matter back to the University Committee forfurther review or may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance withthe policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning. The facultymember may appeal the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ recommendation tothe Faculty Appeals Committee.

10. Except when faculty appeals procedures direct that files be available to aggrieved facultymembers, the outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to the appropriatedivision or university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, releasedotherwise only with the consent of the faculty member.

Post-Tenure Review of Division Heads With Tenure

Division Heads will be subject to annual performance review by faculty members within the Divisionaccording to the annual review policy of the University and by the Provost and Vice President forAcademic Affairs according to written published criteria. For purposes of post-tenure review, fortenured faculty members serving as division heads or in other capacities with similar duties, thefunction of the Division Committee is performed by the University Committee, and the function ofthe Division Head is performed by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. If thefaculty member rejects the written improvement plan recommended by the University Committee, theCommittee shall report the rejection to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Thefaculty member shall have the opportunity to provide written rationale for the rejection. The Provostand Vice President for Academic Affairs may refer the matter back to the University Committee forfurther review or may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with thepolicies fo the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning. The faculty member mayappeal the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ recommendation to the Faculty AppealsCommittee. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will report to the Faculty SenateExecutive Committee.

Post-Tenure Review of Administrative Officers with Faculty Rank

Administrative Officers with Faculty Rank will be subject to annual performance review according tothe annual review policy and by the President according to written published criteria. So long as theAdministrative Officer with Faculty Rank retains his or her position, it will be presumed that Post-Tenure Review is not necessary. Removal from the position could trigger post-tenure review underthe same circumstances as with any other tenured faculty member.

Mississippi Valley State University

Post Tenure Review shall be intended to provide a means for continued faculty development and evidenceof academic effectiveness. The tenured faculty member shall be evaluated and assessed in the areas of

Mississippi Valley State University 26

teaching effectiveness, scholarly and professional activity, and university and community services. ThePost Tenure Review shall be initiated in addition to the annual evaluation of all faculty members.

The Post Tenure Review shall be initiated when the tenured faculty member’s annual evaluation isunsatisfactory for two consecutive years. Upon the tenured faculty member receiving an unsatisfactoryevaluation, the post tenure committee shall review the unsatisfactory evaluation by the department chair. Ifthe committee agrees with the chair’s unsatisfactory evaluation, the committee will recommend to the chairand the faculty member to develop a plan to improve the performance of the tenure faculty member. Thepost tenure improvement plan and the chair’s recommendations shall be submitted to the Post TenureCommittee for review and subsequently submitted to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs forfinal approval.

Should the committee disagree with the chair’s unsatisfactory evaluation, the committee shall submit thevaluation and recommendations to the Provost/Vice President for review and final resolution.

Regardless of the annual evaluation, the tenured faculty member shall undergo Post Tenure Review everyfive years. The department chair/dean may postpone the Post Tenure Review of the faculty memberbecause of illness, university special assignments, or extenuating circumstances.

Procedures/Results/Outcomes:

1. A rating of “Unsatisfactory” in two consecutive annual evaluations initiates Post Tenure Review.

2. The Post Tenure Committee shall recommend to the chair to initiate the post tenure reviewprocedure, with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the department.

3. The Post Tenure Review is conducted by the chair and department committee with a minimumof 5 tenured faculty members.

4. Outcomes:

a. Satisfactory Rating- A faculty member shall be informed and a written statement added tohis/her personnel file.

b. Unsatisfactory Rating - A mandatory post tenure improvement plan shall be developedincluding a list of items to be completed and available resources to accomplish the listedtasks/activities. Completion of the post tenure improvement plan by the faculty membershall not exceed 18 months.

5. The chair shall submit to the Post Tenure Committee an improvement plan for their review andapproval. A final resolution shall be conducted by the Provost/Vice President for AcademicAffairs.

6. The chair shall submit to the Post Tenure Committee the results of the post tenure improvementplan to the Post Tenure Committee and if they agree with the chair’s results, the Committee shallsubmit the results to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs for approval andacceptance. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, shall provide a written statementto the President for final approval and acceptance of the Post Tenure Review of the facultymember.

The University of Mississippi 27

7. If the Committee disagrees with the chair’s report of results, the entire Post Tenure Review file,along with the committee’s recommendations, shall be submitted to the Provost/Vice Presidentfor Academic Affairs for final resolution. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shallprovide a written statement to the President for final approval or disapproval of the post tenurereview of the faculty member.

8. The President shall notify the faculty member as to the preliminary outcome of the post tenurereview process. The faculty member is entitled 30 days to submit to the President a rebuttal toany and all parts of the post tenure review process.

9. The Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be responsible for the resolution of allitems of rebuttals submitted and make recommendations to the President for final approval andacceptance.

10. The President shall notify the faculty member as to the final outcome of the post tenure reviewprocess. The President shall include in his/her written statement one or a combination of thelisted sanctions included in this policy.

Sanctions:

The tenured faculty member who fails to correct or complete their post tenure improvement plan inthe required time period, with special exception, shall be subject to the following sanctions:

A. Revocation of TenureB. Reduction in Academic Rank and SalaryC. Involuntary LeaveD. Termination of Employment

Appended Recommendation for Faculty Post Tenure Review:

Following is an addendum to the recommendations of the MVSU Faculty Senate regarding Faculty PostTenure Review.

1. Post tenure review shall only be triggered for an individual tenured faculty member when thetenured faculty member’s annual evaluation is unsatisfactory for three consecutive years (nottwo consecutive years).

The University of Mississippi

1. Purpose, Principles, and Objectives

A. Post-tenure review at the University of Mississippi is developmental in nature and shall besupported by institutional resources for professional development. It is intended to encourageintellectual vitality and proficient levels of performance by all members of the facultythroughout their careers. It is also designed to enhance public trust in the University by ensuringthat the faculty community undertakes regular and rigorous efforts to hold all of its membersaccountable for high professional standards.

The University of Mississippi recognizes that the granting of tenure for university faculty is a


vital protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. This post-tenure review policydefines a system of periodic peer evaluation that is intended to enhance and protect theguarantees of tenure and academic freedom. It is expressly recognized that nothing in this policyalters or amends the University’s policies regarding removal of tenured faculty members forcause (which are stipulated in the Handbook for Faculty and Staff) or shifts the burden of proofplaced on the University in such actions.

B. The following principles from the American Association of University Professors shall beconsidered a part of the University’s post-tenure review policy, and all procedures developed andactions taken shall be in accordance with these principles.

1. Post-tenure review must ensure the protection of academic freedom as defined in the 1940Statement of Principles. The application of its procedures, therefore, should not intrude onan individual faculty member’s proper sphere of professional self-direction, nor should itbe used as a subterfuge for effecting programmatic change. Such a review must notbecome the occasion for a wide-ranging “fishing expedition” in an attempt to dredge upnegative evidence.

2. Post-tenure review must not be a reevaluation or revalidation of tenured status as definedin the 1940 Statement. In no case should post-tenure review be used to shift the burden ofproof from the institution’s administration (to show cause why a tenured faculty membershould be dismissed) to the individual faculty member (to show cause why he or sheshould be retained).

3. The written standards and criteria by which faculty members are evaluated in post-tenurereview should be developed and periodically reviewed by the faculty. The faculty shouldalso conduct the actual review process. The basic standard for appraisal should be whetherthe faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professionalcompetence the duties appropriately associated with his or her position, not whether thefaculty member meets the current standards for the award of tenure as those might havechanged since the initial granting of tenure.

4. Post-tenure review should be developmental and supported by institutional resources forprofessional development or a change of professional direction. In the event that aninstitution decides to invest the time and resources required for comprehensive or“blanket” review, it should also offer tangible recognition to those faculty members whohave demonstrated high or improved performance.

5. Post-tenure review should be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations indifferent disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers.

6. Except when faculty appeals procedures direct that files be available to aggrieved facultymembers, the outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to theappropriate college or university persons or bodies and the faculty member beingevaluated, released otherwise only at the discretion or with the consent of the facultymember.

7. If the system of post-tenure review is supplemented, or supplanted, by the option of aformal development plan, that plan cannot be imposed on the faculty member unilaterally,but must be a product of mutual negotiation. It should respect academic freedom andprofessional self- direction, and it should be flexible enough to allow for subsequentalteration or even its own abandonment. The standard here should be that of good faith on


both sides--a commitment to improvement by the faculty member and to the adequatesupport of that improvement by the institution-- rather than the literal fulfillment of a setof non-negotiable demands or rigid expectations, quantitative or otherwise.

8. A faculty member should have the right to comment in response to evaluations, and tochallenge the findings and correct the record by appeal to an elected faculty grievancecommittee. He or she should have the same rights of comment and appeal concerning themanner of formulating, the content of, and any evaluation resulting from, anyindividualized development plan.

9. In the event that recurring evaluations reveal continuing and persistent problems with afaculty member’s performance that do not lend themselves to improvement after severalefforts, and that call into question his or her ability to function in that position, then otherpossibilities, such as a mutually agreeable reassignment to other duties or separationshould be explored. If these are not practicable, or if no other solution acceptable to theparties can be found, then the administration should invoke peer consideration regardingany contemplated sanctions.

10. The standard for dismissal or severe sanction remains that of adequate cause, and the merefact of successive negative reviews does not in any way diminish the obligation of theinstitution to show such cause for dismissal in a separate forum before an appropriatelyconstituted hearing body of peers convened for that purpose. Evaluation records may beadmissible but rebuttable as to accuracy. Even if they are accurate, the administration isstill required to bear the burden of proof and demonstrate through an adversarialproceeding not only that the negative evaluations rest on fact, but also that the facts rise tothe level of adequate cause for dismissal. The faculty member must be afforded the fullprocedural safeguards set forth in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in FacultyDismissal Proceedings and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on AcademicFreedom and Tenure, which include, among others, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.

2. Procedures

All tenured faculty members, including administrators, shall undergo a post-tenure review when he orshe receives 3 “unsatisfactory” annual reviews in any period of 6 consecutive years, excluding yearswhen the faculty member is on leave. For the purpose of this document, an annual review conductedby the Department Chair or Dean or Provost shall be deemed satisfactory unless the Chair’s or Dean’sor Provost’s review states expressly that “for the purpose of post-tenure review, this shall beconsidered an unsatisfactory review.” Post-tenure review for tenured faculty members holdingadministrative appointments will supplement, not substitute for, other assessments of theirperformance of administrative duties. It is the responsibility of the administrator conducting the annualreview to determine when a post-tenure review is to be triggered and to be familiar with the pertinentevaluation criteria.

A. Evaluation CriteriaThe standard for evaluation shall be whether the faculty member under review dischargesconscientiously and with professional competence the duties associated with his or her position.Consistent with this standard, faculty in each department (or other relevant unit) shall developappropriate post-tenure review criteria, which should reflect the varying emphases and roles thatsenior faculty may play within a comprehensive university. Departmental faculty criteria (and anysubsequent revisions to them) shall be in writing and copies shall be forwarded to the appropriatedean and the Office of the Provost. Post-tenure review criteria must be finalized in writing at least


one calendar year prior to a department’s first post-tenure review.

B. DocumentationThe following documentation shall constitute the post-tenure review of all faculty members:

1) a copy of a current curriculum vitae;2) a copy of the faculty member’s annual activity reports from each year since the previous

review;3) a copy of the chair’s annual evaluation of the faculty member and any available

information about the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness from each year since theprevious review;

4) copies of reviews of administrators by other administrators; and5) a concise cover memorandum from the faculty member summarizing his/her

accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research, and service since the previous reviewand outlining his/her plans in these areas for the next six years.

C. Review Committees and Procedures

1) Department Faculty Review

a) CompositionThe department faculty level review is to be conducted by a committee of tenured, non-administrative, academic faculty of the department faculty in which the faculty memberhas primary appointment. The committee shall consist of at least three members. It is theresponsibility of the department faculty to specify the composition of the reviewcommittee. For example, a department faculty may choose to employ a committee of thewhole, a steering/advisory committee, or an ad hoc committee.

The department faculty may have a single committee for all candidates in a given year, ormay choose to constitute several committees for this purpose. For faculty members withjoint appointments involving budgetary commitments from more than one departmentfaculty, members representing the secondary department faculty shall be included on thecommittee, but the primary department faculty will in all cases have a majority ofcommittee members. In cases in which a department faculty does not have three tenured,non-administrative, academic faculty members, an outside member (or members) shall beappointed by the department faculty head, with the approval of the relevant dean.

b) ReviewAfter examining the documentation described above, the departmental faculty post-tenurereview committee shall prepare a concise written report assessing the faculty member’sperformance based on the criteria outlined above. The committee’s report shall include anotation indicating whether the faculty member’s performance is judged to be satisfactoryor unsatisfactory, a narrative text indicating the rationale for the assessment, and a recordof the committee’s vote. In the case of associate professors, the report shall also includeguidance on activities that would enhance prospects for a successful promotion review.

Copies of all reports shall be kept on file in the departmental faculty office and shall alsobe forwarded to the faculty member under review, the dean of the appropriate college orschool, and to the Office of the Provost

In the case of an unsatisfactory review, the committee and the faculty member’s Chairshall (after consultation with the appropriate unit head, dean, and faculty member) outline

The University of Mississippi Medical Center 31

and communicate to the faculty member a formal, written plan for corrective action andprofessional development. This plan may include University resources to help the affectedfaculty member enhance research efforts or retool teaching skills. If the plan does includea requirement for additional resources or a change in the faculty member’s assignment,this must be endorsed in writing by the pertinent administrator. The plan shall includeclearly-defined and specific goals, an outline of and timetable for activities to beundertaken, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy.

Faculty members who receive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews (and whoseunsatisfactory reviews are upheld should they be appealed, for which see below) shall bereviewed again using the above procedure in the third year following the initial review. Ifthis subsequent review results in a satisfactory rating by the departmental facultycommittee, the affected faculty members post-tenure review clock will be restarted at thebeginning of a new 6-year period. If the subsequent review again yields an unsatisfactoryrating (and this rating is upheld on appeal, for which see below), the matter shall beforwarded to the Office of the Provost for further appropriate action.

2) University-level Appeal

a) CompositionFaculty who receive unsatisfactory post-tenure reviews from their departmental facultycommittees may appeal these decisions to the University’s Sabbatical Leave ReviewCommittee. Such appeals must be filed, in writing, with the chair of the Committee onAcademic Freedom and Faculty Responsibility within 15 working days of the facultymember’s formal, written notification of a negative review.

b) ReviewThe Sabbatical Leave Review Committee shall have the authority to review all documentsrelated to matters appealed to it and may, at its discretion, convene a hearing to reconsideran unsatisfactory evaluation. The committee shall have the authority to reverse anunsatisfactory evaluation, remand a matter to the appropriate departmental facultycommittee for further evaluation, and amend plans for corrective professionaldevelopment. The committee shall issue a written report outlining the rationale for itsdecisions, and shall forward copies of such decisions to the affected faculty member,departmental faculty chair, appropriate dean, and the Office of the Provost.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center

School of Dentistry

The strength of an institution of higher learning is in the academic acumen of its faculty. That acumen isbuilt upon years of rigorous and ardent acquisition and discovery, of knowledge. The worth of the tenuredfaculty is the ability to acquire and discover knowledge and to impart this knowledge to students andpeers. The experience of the tenured faculty of an institution of higher learning is the foundation uponwhich the curriculum is based and upon which the younger faculty are mentored and developed.

In 1995, the School of Dentistry implemented a system for a comprehensive annual review both ofnontenured and tenured faculty members. Department chairmen are responsible for the evaluation offaculty members in their own departments, while the chairman themselves are reviewed by the dean. These


annual evaluations are based upon a Faculty Role Agreement which defines the faculty member’sprofessional roles for the coming year. This system of faculty evaluation has been accepted by the facultyand the administration of the School of Dentistry as fair and equitable. The details of this review systemare presented in the School of Dentistry’s Faculty Evaluation Manual.

The annual evaluation system provides a foundation for the process of post tenure review. At the firstannual review session in which the tenured faculty member’s performance is assessed as unsatisfactory, heor she will be counseled by his or her reviewer and offered an opportunity for appropriate correction ofdeficiencies.

Post tenure review is triggered by a second unsatisfactory annual review within any three-year period. Awritten report of all unsatisfactory reviews will be provided to the faculty member, with a copy to thedean. Documentation for post tenure review may include, but is not limited to, summaries of the annualreviews of the previous three years, student evaluations, and a statement from the person under reviewdescribing his or her contributions to the accomplishment of the mission and goals of the School ofDentistry.

The faculty member shall be reviewed by a Triad Review Committee which is composed of three facultymembers: one member selected by the individual under review, one member selected by the facultymember’s department chairperson, and one member from another department selected by the dean, Schoolof Dentistry. A representative from the Faculty Senate shall be appointed to the Triad Review Committeeby the dean as an impartial observer.

The Triad Review Committee may recommend to the dean:a. additional time not to exceed one year for remediation/corrective action by the reviewed faculty

member followed by re-evaluation of the faculty member by his/her departmental chairperson. (Ifa subsequent unsatisfactory annual evaluation is received from the departmental chairperson,dismissal may be recommended by the chairperson to the dean.)

b. initiation of dismissal procedures.Once the cycle of post tenure review is initiated, two consecutive, annual satisfactoryevaluations must he completed or dismissal of the reviewed faculty member by thechairperson may be recommended to the dean.

Approval of a recommendation by the dean for dismissal of the reviewed faculty membershall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs for appropriate action as statedin the UMC Faculty and Staff Handbook for dismissal of tenured faculty.


School of Nursing

The following statement from Texas A&M University reflects the thoughts on post-tenure review by theSchool of Nursing Faculty Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee.

“Post-tenure review is intended to promote continued professional development. A fundamental purposesupporting post-tenure review is to enable a faculty member who has fallen below performance norms topursue a peer-coordinated professional development plan and return to expected productivity. Theobjective is to conserve the investments of the institution in one of its greatest strengths, its dedicatedfaculty.” (Texas A&M University Role on Post-Tenure Review, 1996),


Current annual review procedure

University of Mississippi School of Nursing Post-Tenure Review is based an the faculty’s annual review.The School of Nursing currently conducts an annual review of faculty in March of each year. The basicformat of the annual review is for faculty to do a self-evaluation based of the goals planned in the previousyear, and then the administrator and faculty review the evaluation and goals for the coming year. Theevaluation may be viewed as unsatisfactory by either the faculty or administrator or both. If the evaluationis deemed unsatisfactory, then the faculty member and administrator mutually determine the goals andactivities for the coming year.

Procedure for post-tenure review

1. Initiation of post-tenure review.Post-tenure review will be initiated immediately following a third consecutive unsatisfactoryannual review. The review may be initiated by the faculty member or the administrator.Initiation of a review should not impact the offering of the contract for the subsequentacademic year.

2. Materials to be included in the post-tenure review.The faculty member will supply a dossier containing annual reviews written by the facultywith essential supporting materials. Written reviews by the administrator, with previous plansfor improvement, will also be included in the materials.

3. The post-tenure review.School of Nursing tenured faculty will conduct the review. The review committee shaltconsist of three (3) tenured faculty: one member selected by the faculty member, one memberselected by the tenured faculty, and one selected by the department chair/administrator. Allpersons serving on the review committee will at least hold equal faculty rank of the personbeing reviewed. Tenured faculty outside the School of Nursing may be sought forparticipation in the review if the necessary criteria for rank can not be met within the Schoolof Nursing Faculty. The faculty member being reviewed will provide the review committeewith a list of potential outside reviewers to review the dossier. The faculty member andcommittee may have legal counsel present at the review.

4. Outcome of post-tenure review.The outcome of the review will be an agreed upon professional development plan outlininghow the deficiencies are to be remedied. The plan, including a time line, will be one that isagreed upon by the faculty, the review committee and the administrator(s).

Tenure

Policies. By Statute, the Board of Trustees has the power and authority to contract with all dean’sprofessors, and other members of the teaching staff and all administrative employees of said institutions.Although the law does not empower the Board to contract for indefinite periods, its bylaws provide that:“It shall be the policy of the Board to elect all official for a definite tenure of service and to re-elect duringthe period of satisfactory service.” The Board also empowers the executive heads of the institutions to“adopt policies of continuing employment for the purpose of making nominations for the teachingpositions.”

The University of Mississippi Medical Center administration believes that faculty who have demonstratedtheir value to the institution over a period of years should enjoy maximum security of employment andconsiders tenure an essential element of the proper environment for effective teaching and scholarly


research.

The status of tenure is reserved for members of the regular, full-time faculty, It must be approved by theBoard and is made known by written notification from the Chancellor following the satisfactorycompletion of a probationary period as a member of the University Medical Center faculty and compliancewith the procedures stated herein. It is a requirement of Board policy that a faculty member shall havetenure only when so informed in writing.

Minimum Standards for Continuing Employment. Beginning with appointment to any professional rank(assistant professor, associate professor, professor), a faculty member may be recommended for tenureafter completing a probationary period of five to seven academic years, three of which may have been metin the rank of instructor. Upon written agreement between the institution and the faculty member, credit upto a maximum of four years toward fulfillment of the minimum probationary period may be allowed forservice at one or more other institution of higher education. Such credit toward the probationary periodtransferred from another institution must be determined at the time of initial appointment to rank. Suchallowance is to be granted only to an individual who possesses exceptional professional qualifications andachievements and is not to be construed as exempting said individual from any other institutional policiesand procedures governing the awarding of tenure.

Once the probationary period has been successfully completed, a professor of any rank, if reappointed,may be awarded tenure. For tenure to be awarded, the Chancellor must make recommendation to the Boardin writing. Only faculty members of professional rank can be awarded tenure. The award of tenure is notvested until notice of the award is given in writing by this Chancellor, after approval by the Board, and thewritten notice is actually received by the faculty member.

Faculty members who transfer from one institution to another within the Mississippi system are subject tothe same probationary period in a given institution as any other faculty member who is new to the system.

Non-renewal of Tenure-Track Faculty. Notice of intention not to renew a tenure track faculty membershall be furnished in writing according to the following schedule:

1. Not later than March 1 before the date of termination during the first year of service2. Not later than December 1 before the date of termination during the second year o service.3. Not later than September 1 before the date of termination of a contract after two o more years of

service in the institution.

This schedule of notification does not apply to persons holding temporary or part-time positions, orpersons with courtesy appointments, such as adjunct appointments.


School of Health Related Professions

The annual evaluation system provides a foundation for the process of post tenure review. At the firstannual review session in which the tenured faculty member’s performance is assessed as unsatisfactory, heor she will be counseled by his or her reviewer and offered an opportunity for appropriate correction ofdeficiencies.

Post tenure review is triggered by a second unsatisfactory annual review within any three-year period. A


written report of all unsatisfactory reviews will be provided to the faculty member, with a copy to the dean.Documentation for post tenure review may include, but is not limited to, summaries of the annual reviewsof the previous three years, student evaluations, and a statement from the person under review describinghis or her contributions to the accomplishment of the mission and goals of the School of Health RelatedProfessions, particularly as they relate to teaching, scholarly activity, and service.

The faculty member shall be reviewed by a School of Health Related Professions Review Committeewhich is composed of three faculty members: one member selected by the individual under review, onemember selected by the faculty member’s department chairperson, and one member from anotherdepartment selected by the dean, School of Health Related Professions. A representative from the FacultySenate shall be appointed to the School of Health Related Professions Review Committee by the dean asan impartial observer.

The School of Health Related Professions Review Committee may recommend to the dean:a. That no further action be taken.b. Additional time not to exceed one year for remediation/corrective action by the reviewed faculty

member followed by re-evaluation of the faculty member by his/her departmental chairperson. (Ifa subsequent unsatisfactory annual evaluation is received from the departmental chairperson, thechairperson may recommend dismissal to the dean.)

c. Referral of the review to the Medical Center Academic Freedom and Faculty ResponsibilityCommittee.

d. Initiation of dismissal procedures.

Once the cycle of post tenure review is initiated, two consecutive, annual satisfactory evaluations must becompleted or dismissal of the reviewed faculty member by the chairperson may be recommended to thedean.

Approval of a Review Committee recommendation by the dean for further review by Academic Freedomand Faculty Responsibility Committee or the dismissal of the reviewed faculty member shall be forwardedto the Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs for appropriate action.

The University of Mississippi School of Medicine

School of Medicine

Background

Many universities have developed faculty review processes in order to demonstrate institutionalaccountability to the public, legislatures and board of trustees. These processes are directed toward careerdevelopment rather than punitive activity. That is, the process is designed to aid faculty members inidentifying strengths and areas of needed improvement in order to maintain academic productivitythroughout their careers.

SACS and Board of Trustees’ Mandates

The Southern Associations of Colleges and Schools (SACS) requires annual reviews of all facultymembers. The Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) policy also requireseach institution to develop policies and procedures for periodic review of all tenured faculty. Thesereviews should be consistent with the institutional mission and priorities and linked to existing annualreview policies and procedures. The Board of Trustees further directs that institutional review include a


comprehensive evaluation of the faculty member’s performance, peer appraisal, and opportunities forfaculty development. Consequences of unsatisfactory performance, including termination, must also bedelineated. Additionally, each institution is required to submit an annual report to the Board regardingpost-tenure review activity.

Boards of Trustees Tenure Policy

Policies related to tenure are outlined in the Faculty and Staff Handbook of the University of MississippiMedical Center. The Board executes all annual contracts with faculty. The Board policy is to renewcontracts during periods of satisfactory service. As described under the terms of employment, full-timefaculty of professorial rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor) may be granted tenure aftercompletion of probationary periods of five to seven academic years. Tenure is granted to faculty uponrecommendation by the Chancellor of the University and approval by the Board of Trustees. As stated inthe Faculty and Staff Handbook, the “University of Mississippi Medical Center administration believesthat faculty who have demonstrated their value to the institution over a period of years should enjoymaximum security of employment and considers tenure an essential element of the proper environment foreffective teaching and scholarly research.” The Handbook further indicates that tenured faculty areterminated only under extraordinary circumstances. Non-tenured faculty may be terminated by notificationor by non-renewal of a faculty member’s annual contract. Policies for such action are listed in the Faculty-Staff Handbook.

UMC’s Response to the Board of Trustees’ Mandate

The policies described below have been developed to comply with Board of Trustees’ directives and toprovide for a faculty review process that is aimed primarily at recognition of excellence and in the absence,thereof, at improvement and remediation of faculty performance, rather than dismissal. The processoutlined below will apply to tenured and nontenured faculty. Neither can be terminated except in accordwith polices and procedures outlined in the Faculty and Staff Handbook.

The Annual Review Process

Each chair will develop a faculty evaluation policy with a departmental evaluation form for his/herdepartment. A sample evaluation form is provided as Attachment 1. The annual review process will centeraround a self-evaluation component by the faculty member and a critique by the department chair. Thisprocess should reflect the values and culture of the department. Each department’s written policy andevaluation form will be approved by the Dean of the School of Medicine prior to implementation.

Each July, each department chair will distribute faculty evaluation forms to all faculty. Individual facultymembers will complete the self-evaluation component of the form no later than August 1 and forward tothe chair. The chair will review the faculty member’s self-evaluation section and complete the chair’sportion of the evaluation form. The chair will review the evaluation with the faculty member in person.The results of each faculty evaluation in each department will be reported to the dean no later thanFebruary 1. This report will list each departmental faculty member’s status as satisfactory or unsatisfactory(Attachment 2).

Individuals with unsatisfactory evaluations will enter a remediation process (see below). The remediationplan will be developed by the chair in consultation with the faculty member who has received anunsatisfactory review. A written copy of the remedial plan will be placed in the faculty member’sdepartmental records.

In some larger departments, faculty members may be evaluated by the division director. In this case,division directors will be evaluated by the chair. Chairs will be evaluated in a similar fashion by the Dean.


Minimal Requirements for Annual Review

The specifics of how an individual department performs annual reviews are not prescribed. However,criteria listed in each departmental plan should be conscientiously and equitably applied within the samedepartment.

The departmental chair or division director will review performance of individuals based on peerevaluations, student evaluations, and scholarly and administrative accomplishments during the previousyear. The minimum requirements in the annual review process for each department could include appraisalof performance in the work areas listed below:

Service:Clinical Faculty Basic Science FacultyInpatient responsibilities UMC committees

Attending service (days/year) PhD thesis committeesConsult service (days/year) PhD faculty advisor

Outpatient clinics (days/year, days/month) Supervisor of graduate studentsUMC committees

Education (Clinical and Basic Science)Medical student lecturesGraduate (resident lectures)Post Graduate (CME lectures)

Scholarly ActivitiesResearchGrant support

PapersAbstracts/posters

BooksChaptersReviews

Editorial responsibilityEditor-in-chiefEditorial staffAd hoc reviewer (name of journals, number of reviews)

Study section — NIH or otherNational/International committees or organizationsNational/International presentationsHosting visiting scholarsMentoring of students/residents/fellows

Administrative ActivitiesUniversity Hospital & Clinics committees and leadership positionsDivision oversight (running a major division)UMC leadership roles

Due Process: The Chair’s Advisory Committee

For individuals receiving a second consecutive unsatisfactory review or three unsatisfactory reviews in afive year period, an Advisory Committee will be appointed by the chair (Attachment 3). The AdvisoryCommittee will include three faculty members, at least one of whom is of the same rank and tenure status


as the faculty member under review from the department. Two members of the committee will be chosenby the chair, and one member will be chosen by the faculty member under review, If there are not enoughdepartmental members to make up the committee, the chair or faculty member may appoint committeemembers from another department. The Advisory committee will review the circumstances of theunsatisfactory reviews and the remediation process undertaken. The Advisory Committee will then meetwith the chair and the faculty member.

The Advisory Committee may only make one of two recommendations to the chair: further remediation ordismissal. A majority vote of the Advisory Committee will constitute the committee’s recommendation.However, the chair will not be bound by the committee’s recommendation.

If the committee recommends further remediation and the chair agrees, the Advisory Committee may beasked by the chair to assist in writing a plan of remediation.

If the chair chooses further remediation, that action should also be reported to the Dean in writing. If thechair recommends termination, the chair will make a written recommendation to the Dean. In either case,the Advisory Committee’s report should be forwarded to the Dean.

Dismissal Process

The Dean will review any recommendations for dismissal. If the Dean agrees with the recommendation, anontenured faculty member will receive notice that employment will cease on a given date. For tenuredfaculty, the Dean will appoint an institutional committee to review the recommendation as outlined in theFaculty Handbook.

Attachment 1


ANNUAL FACULTY PERFORMANCE REPORT

1. NAME (First, Middle Initial, Last) 2. DEGREE 3. DIVISION 4. POSITION TITLE

G Instructor G Assistant Professor

G Associate Professor G Professor

G Division Director G Chair

5. POSITION TRACK

G Tenure

G Nontenure

6. PERIOD COVERED BY REPORT

FROM: TO:

SECTION A - PERFORMANCE REPORT

INSTRUCTIONS TO FACULTY MEMBER: Self evaluate by providing appropriate responses; — provide numbers when possible. Discuss the evaluationwith the Chair when completed.

CATEGORY I — CLINICAL PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY II — EDUCATION PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY III — SCHOLARSHIP PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY IV — ADMINISTRATIVE PERFORMANCE

SECTION B — OVERALL RATING AND COMMENTS (Takes into account of the Position Track)

RATING

BY FACULTY: UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY SUPERIOR1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G 8 G 9 G

BY DIRECTOR: UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY SUPERIOR1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G 8 G 9 G

COMMENTS (Overall comments highlighting exceptional strengths and weaknesses and on plans to address any deficiencies. The back ofthe form may be used.)

BY FACULTY:

BY DIRECTOR:

PLANS FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT:

Faculty signature and date Chairman signature and date


Insert flow chart here

The University of Southern Mississippi 41

Attachment 3

Instructions to the Chair’s Advisory Committee

Purpose

The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the chair in arriving at a fair decision concerning afaculty member whose annual evaluations have been judged by the chair to be unacceptable. The AdvisoryCommittee serves in an advisory capacity to the chair. The appointment of such a committee and theensuing review process will occur when a faculty member (tenured or non-tenured) receives twoconsecutive unsatisfactory annual reviews or receives three unsatisfactory annual reviews in a five yearperiod.

Composition

The Advisory Committee will include three faculty members of the same academic rank as the facultymember under review from the department. Two members of the committee will be chosen by the chair,and one member will be chosen by the faculty member under review. The chair will also select thecommittee chairperson. This is an ad hoc committee that will be disbanded upon completion of itsassigned task.

Procedures

After it has been appointed, the Advisory Committee will have 30 days to complete its task and to file itssealed report with the chair. The committee will conduct one hearing with the faculty member in question,one hearing with the department chair and, if appropriate, a hearing with the division director. It willreview the faculty member’s previous evaluations and responses to previous attempts at remediation. Thecommittee will make one of two recommendations: termination or further remediation. The committeewill detail the reasons for the recommendation in a letter to the department chair.

If the chair concurs with a recommendation for remediation, the Advisory Committee may be asked toparticipate in drafting a remediation plan. The chair may modify the proposed remediation plan. The chairwill present the remediation plan to the faculty member, and documentation of the meeting will occur. TheDean must be notified of this decision in a letter that attaches a copy of the Advisory Committee’srecommendation.

If the chair chooses to recommend termination for the faculty member under review, the chair must notifythe Dean of this recommendation in writing with a justification for such recommendation. A copy of theAdvisory Committee’s report must be included with the recommendation to the Dean.

The University of Southern Mississippi

Preamble

The University of Southern Mississippi consists of a community of scholars who are engaged in theresponsibilities of scholarly development while accorded the privilege of academic freedom. Tenuredfaculty members fulfill a multiplicity of university, college, and unit roles and responsibilities yet, at thesame time, pursue self-directed inquiry and development. Tenured faculty members balance teaching,research, and service roles and expectations with a sustained performance of consistency. The tenuredfaculty represent the most important intellectual resource at The University because faculty have a stake inthe accomplishments and contributions of others, as well as a stake in their own accomplishments.

The members of the Faculty Senate recognize that the tenure system is essential to protect academicfreedom and support the pursuit of scholarship that leads to advancement in knowledge. The provision of


freedom and economic security through the tenure system are indispensable elements to the success of TheUniversity in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. We, therefore, seek to uphold andmaintain the tenure system both as protection of individual faculty members and as visible evidence thatuninhibited scholarship and instruction are the highest priority for faculty members.

The traditional approaches to annual evaluation in which The University already engages highlight themany contributions of our scholars. We, the members of the Faculty Senate, maintain that the goal ofpost-tenure review should be on of enhancing faculty development and professional skills by providingevidence of documentation and accountability to The University and The Institutions of Higher Learning,State of Mississippi, and not one of re-opening the question of academic freedom and tenure.

The Faculty Senate members maintain that post-tenure review should not be a re-evaluation of tenure. Wemaintain that the burden of proof should not be shifted from The University’s administration (to showcause for dismissal) to the individual faculty member (to show cause for retention). The Faculty Senatemembers contend that the post-tenure review process should allow substantive due process of individualfaculty members at all times and that the process should remain under the control of the faculty.

We, the Faculty Senate members, therefore maintain that the post-tenure review process should emphasizeand foster professional development. Through this process, we maintain that faculty can gain mutualrespect and a sense of collective purpose while optimizing faculty skills and performance. We believe thatif post-tenure review is carried out in this manner, The University’s reputation and quality will bestrengthened.

Review Process

1. Post tenure review begins with the annual performance evaluation. The post tenure reviewevaluation is made on the basis of the criteria used for the annual evaluation (teaching,scholarship, service). In a case where there is an overall unsatisfactory performance for twoconsecutive years, a faculty development plan will be designed to assist the faculty member inovercoming his or her deficiencies in the various areas evaluated.

2. This review process will be initiated when a faculty member has had overall unsatisfactoryevaluations for two consecutive years. The department chair or school director will notify thefaculty member and dean that the review process should commence. The dean will notify thefaculty member if the dean is the immediate supervisor for the faculty member. The dean willinitiate the review process unless there are substantive mitigating circumstances, including, butnot limited to, serious illness.

3. If the review process begins, and ad hoc committee composed of three members will convene.The makeup of the committee will be chosen as follows: the dean will select one member, thechair or director will select one member, and faculty member will select one member. In unitswithout department chairs or school directors, or with multiple lines of authority, theadministrator immediately superior to the faculty member will appoint two committee members,but the faculty member has the right of approval for one of those appointed. The members ofthe committee may come from one’s own department or from other departments or collegeswithin the university. By mutual consent of the committee of three, up to two additionalmembers may be added to the committee. Members who accept appointment should realize thatthe committee will meet over a two-year period. If a committee member cannot fulfill his or herterm, another member will be appointed by the individual, or their successor, who made theoriginal choice.

4. Within one month of the date of notification of the professional review, the faculty member willprepare and submit a portfolio that includes all documents, materials and statements that thefaculty member deems relevant and necessary. All materials submitted by the faculty memberwill remain in the portfolio. Portfolios must include the current annual evaluation; the annual


evaluation from the two preceding years; the goals for each of those years, if goals are part ofthe annual evaluation process; a current curriculum vita; evidence of performance in teaching,scholarship, and service, and a proposed developmental plan. The department chair, programdirector, or dean may add other pertinent information to the portfolio. Additional materials maybe added at any time during the review process.

5. The review process will occur within two months after the faculty member submits the initialportfolio. The review process will be based on the faculty member’s specific role andresponsibilities in the department as outlines in the goals approved for that faculty member, ifsuch goals exist.

6. The professional development plan will indicate how specific deficiencies in the performance ofa faculty member, as indicated by the review committee, will be corrected. The final plan, to beapproved by the dean, will be developed by the faculty member in collaboration with the chair(or director or dean, if there is no chair) and the review committee.

7. As a matter of due process, the faculty member shall have the right to meet with the reviewcommittee prior to its final recommendation. The review committee will specifically elaboratein writing its finding concerning the faculty member’s developmental plan and will providecopies to the faculty member, chair or director, and dean. The final plan must be developedwithin two months of the recommendation to develop the professional development plan. Theplan must be implemented the semester (generally Fall Semester, following Spring evaluation)after receiving the report or deficiencies from the review committee.

8. The faculty member and department chair will meet a minimum of one time each semester toreview the progress of the faculty member toward correction of the identified deficiencies.After each meeting, the department chair will send a progress report to the faculty member,dean, and review committee. The faculty member may request a review of progress by thereview committee, and the findings will be forwarded to the chair or director and dean.

9. When the objectives of the professional development plan have been met, as determined by thereview committee, or not later than two years after initiating the plan, the department chair orschool director will make a final written report, including an overall rating for the period of theplan, to the faculty member, review committee, and dean. The overall report will include ratingsfor teaching, service, and scholarship.

10. If after two years the faculty member has not shown improvement in the identified deficiencyareas and has not achieved an overall rating of satisfactory, a salary freeze of one year will beinitiated. A second, new committee, chosen in the manner of the review committee, will beformed to consider additional sanctions. The second committee will recommend sanctions tothe chair and the dean. After appropriate consultation, it will be the responsibility of the dean toimpose sanctions. Appeals may be made through existing channels for appeal of tenuredecisions.

MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING...MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Post...

Documents

Transcript of MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING...MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Post...