Below is a second draft of proposed changes to the faculty CPR review
process as presented by Bob Levy. Please review this document and provide
me with any comments you feel are appropriate.
Marvin
DRAFT 20 February 2003Clean Copy (without strikeouts & bolds) Only pages
with changes (except for intro page)
The University of Tennessee System
POLICIES GOVERNING
ACADEMIC FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY, AND TENURE
Contents
Page Topic
2 Academic Freedom & Responsibility of the Faculty Member
3 Academic Freedom & Responsibility of The University
Administration
3 Definition of Tenure
3 Eligibility for Tenure Consideration
4 Probationary Period
5 Criteria for Tenure
6 Procedures for Consideration & Grant of Tenure
6 Locus of Tenure
7 Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members
12 Termination of Tenure
14 Disciplinary Sanctions Other than Termination for Adequate
Cause
15 Appendix A--Procedures for Consideration & Grant of Tenure
15 Tenured Faculty's Recommendation
15 Department Head's Recommendation
15 Dean's Recommendation
16 Chief Academic Officer's Recommendation
16 Chancellor's Recommendation
16 President's Recommendation
16 Action by the Board of Trustees
17 Appendix B--Termination Procedures for Category A Adequate
Cause: Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research,
or Service
17 Preliminary Steps
18 Chancellor's Decision to Initiate Termination Proceedings
18 Suspension With Pay or Reassignment Pending Completion of
Termination
Proceedings
18 Failure to Contest
18 Hearing Under TUAPA
19 Hearing Before a Tribunal
21 Chancellor's Recommendation on Termination
22 Review by the Board of Trustees
23 Appendix C--Termination Procedures for Category B Adequate
Cause: Misconduct
23 Preliminary Steps
23 Chancellor's Decision to Initiate Termination Proceedings
24 Suspension or Reassignment Pending Completion of
Termination Proceedings
24 Failure to Contest
24 Waiver of Hearing Under TUAPA
25 Hearing Under TUAPA
26 Expedited Procedure for Termination or Suspension Without
Pay in Certain Cases of Misconduct
The University of Tennessee System
POLICIES GOVERNING
ACADEMIC FREEDOM, RESPONSIBILITY, AND TENURE
Approved by the UT Board of Trustees at its meeting of 18 June 1998
The Board of Trustees is constituted by statute of the State of Tennessee
as the governing body of The University of Tennessee System, with complete
and full authority over the organization and administration of The
University and its constituent parts, and over the granting of tenure to
members of the faculty.
The principal mission of The University is the discovery and dissemination
of truth through teaching, research and service. The Board recognizes that
freedom of inquiry and expression is indispensable for this purpose and
believes that it and the administration and faculty should cooperate to
that end. In The University's program of teaching, research and service,
it is essential that the Board, administration and faculty cooperate
voluntarily, each contributing freely according to his or her
qualifications, in a mutually beneficial exchange of information and ideas.
The following statement is intended to record the policy and procedures of
The University with respect to academic freedom, responsibility, and
tenure. The Board considers these principles compatible with its statutory
authority and responsibilities and the constitutional guarantee of freedom
of speech and inquiry to each citizen of the United States.
B. Eligibility for Tenure Consideration
Eligibility for tenure consideration shall be subject to the
following minimum standards:
1. Regular, full-time, tenure-track faculty appointments at the
academic rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or
professor are eligible for tenure;
2. Temporary, term, and part-time appointments are not eligible for
tenure;
3. Untenured faculty members may not pursue a degree at the
campus
at which they are appointed to a tenure-track
position.
Each campus may establish additional eligibility
requirements for tenure consideration. For example, additional requirements
might include completion of a terminal or other specified degree or a
minimum rank of assistant professor. After approval by the Board of
Trustees, campus eligibility requirements for tenure consideration shall be
published in the campus Faculty Handbook.
No faculty member shall be appointed initially with tenure
except by positive action of the Board of Trustees upon the recommendation
of the President and after review by the tenured faculty and department
Head, Dean, Chief Academic Officer, and Chancellor.
C. Probationary Period
A tenure-track faculty member must serve a probationary period
prior to being considered for tenure.
1. Length of Probationary Period
The probationary period at The University shall be no less than
one and no more than seven academic years; however, for good cause, the
President, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, may approve a
probationary period of less than one academic year. If a faculty member
has served in a tenure-track appointment. . .
[items D, E, & F have no changes to the 1998 document]
G. Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members
Competent teaching is a crucial responsibility for faculty members, and the
effective use of appropriate instructional evaluation (including
departmental files of class syllabi and related materials, student and peer
evaluation, etc.) is important to all objective review processes. Faculty
members with research/creative arts responsibilities should have the
quantity and quality of their work fairly assessed. Each faculty member's
service contributions should be evaluated impartially.
1. Annual Performance-and-Planning Review. Each faculty member and
his or her Department Head will engage in a formal annual
Performance-and-Planning Review, examining the current and previous
academic years' activities and planning what should occur during the coming
academic year. Ideally, the planning aspects of these annual academic year
reviews also should take place in the context of longer-term goals for the
campus, college, and department. Each campus shall strive to reward
faculty members who more than meet expectations for rank, and
administrators shall develop and publish guidelines for each campus to
allocate funds for this purpose whenever feasible. Each faculty member's
annual review should proceed from guidelines and criteria which are
appropriate to the department, college, and campus, and this annual review
should be a key element in merit pay or performance-based salary
adjustments. College and department bylaws should make clear the contexts,
criteria, and procedures to be followed for these reviews. A document
summarizing the reviewincluding an objective rating of the faculty member's
performance, as listed belowmust be signed by the faculty member (to
acknowledge receipt of the review document) and the Department Head. The
Head must send a copy to the Dean. The Dean must send copies of the
documents or a list of names by category to the Chief Academic Officer for
review and approval/disapproval.
Performance ratings for annual reviews shall be as follows, and campus,
college, and department bylaws must clarify the means and metric for each
department head to employ in conducting these reviews:
Outstanding for Rankeligible for the maximum merit pay or
performance-
based salary increase that is consistent with
campus, college, and department fiscal
situations;
Exceeds Expectations for Rankeligible for merit pay or
performance- based salary adjustment
that is consistent with campus, college, and
department fiscal situations;
Meets Expectations for Rankeligible for the minimum merit
pay or
performance-based salary adjustment that is
consistent with
campus, college, and department fiscal
situations;
Needs improvement for Ranknot eligible for merit
pay or performance-
based salary adjustment and required to
implement an Annual
Review Improvement Plan (see below); and
Unsatisfactory for Ranknot eligible for merit pay
or performance-based
salary adjustment and required to
implement an Annual Review
Improvement Plan (see below).
Within 30 days of the annual review, any faculty member rated Needs
Improvement for Rank or Unsatisfactory for Rank must collaborate with the
Head on an Annual Review Improvement Plan to be reviewed by the Head and
recommended by him/her to the Dean for review and approval/denial. The
next year's annual review must include a progress report which clearly
describes improvements in any area(s) noted as Needs Improvement for Rank
or Unsatisfactory for Rank.
Each campus shall have a campus-wide peer review process by which a faculty
member may appeal his/her annual review rating. Developing the process
should involve the Faculty Senate or an appropriate committee thereof.
2. Cumulative Performance Review (CPR). A comprehensive,
formal, cumulative, performance review is triggered for the following
tenured faculty members:
a. a faculty member whose annual review is
Unsatisfactory in any two of five consecutive years;
b. a faculty member whose annual review is any
combination of Unsatisfactory or Needs Improvement in any three of five
consecutive years.
Each campus shall establish policies and procedures for
peer evaluation of the faculty member's cumulative performance. Within
thirty days of being triggered, a CPR Committee shall be convened by the
Dean, who shall determine its chair. This committee shall be composed of
appropriate (same or higher rank) tenured departmental faculty members
(excluding the Head), and appropriate faculty (same or higher rank) from
outside the department. The faculty member being reviewed and the Head may
each name a campus tenured professor (same or higher rank) to the
committee, which normally should have at least five (5) members including
the CPR Committee chair, and at least two additional faculty members
nominated by the Faculty Senate (one departmental faculty member [same or
higher rank] and one non-departmental faculty member [same or higher rank])
from the same college. The Committee chair shall forward the committee
consensus recommendation to the Head, Dean and Chief Academic
Officer. Performance ratings for cumulative reviews shall be as follows:
Satisfies Expectations for Rank
Fails to Satisfy Expectations for Rank
If the CPR Committee consensus rates the faculty member's performance as
Fails to Satisfy Expectations for Rank, it may develop with the affected
faculty member and Head a written CPR Improvement Plan (e.g.,
skill-development leave of absence, intensive mentoring, curtailment of
outside services, change in load/responsibilities) normally of up to one
calendar year, and a means to assess its efficacy, with the plan to be
reviewed by the Dean and approved by the Chief Academic Officer; or the
committee may recommend to the Dean and Chief Academic Officer that the
Chancellor initiate proceedings to terminate the faculty member for
adequate cause after the Chancellor has consulted with the Faculty Senate
President and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee or faculty affairs
committee.
If the CPR Committee consensus rates the faculty member's performance as
Satisfies Expectations for Rank, the Committee must forward its
justification/rationale to the Dean. The Dean must recommend one of the
following three actions by the Chief Academic Officer:
a. that the faculty member's performance is Satisfies Expectations for
Rank, and that his/her personnel file should show that both the Committee
and the Dean concur in a Satisfactory CPR rating; or
b. that the faculty member's performance has been Fails to Satisfy
Expectations for Rank (including a rationale for that ranking), and
recommend that the Chief Academic Officer should require that the CPR
Committee develop with the affected faculty member a written CPR
Improvement Plan (e.g., skill-development leave of absence, intensive
mentoring, curtailment of outside services, change in
load/responsibilities) normally of up to one calendar year, and a means to
assess its efficacy; or
c. that the faculty member's performance has been Fails to Satisfy
Expectations for
Rank (including a rationale for that ranking), and recommend to
the Chief
Academic Officer that the Chancellor initiate proceedings to
terminate the faculty
member for adequate cause after the Chancellor has consulted with
the Faculty
Senate President and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee or
faculty affairs
committee.
At the end of the time allotted for a CPR
Improvement Plan, the Head, CPR Committee, Dean, and Chief Academic Officer
shall send a written consensus report to the campus Chancellor,
recommending:
(i) that the faculty member's
performance is Satisfies Expectations for Rank and no other action need be
taken at this time; or
(ii) that the faculty member's performance has improved
sufficiently to allow for
up to one additional year of monitoring of improvement,
after which the
Head, CPR Committee, Dean, and Chief Academic Officer must by
consensus determine if the faculty member's performance is
Satisfies
Expectations for Rank or recommend that the Chancellor
initiate
proceedings to terminate the faculty member for adequate
cause after the
Chancellor has consulted with the Faculty Senate President
and the Faculty
Senate Executive Committee or faculty affairs committee; or
(iii) that the Chancellor initiate proceedings to terminate the
faculty member
for adequate cause after the Chancellor has consulted with
the Faculty
Senate President or and the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee or
faculty affairs committee.
|
