Title: Post-Tenure Review

PURPOSE: To state the University's policy and to outline the procedures for implementing post-tenure review of the faculty as directed by OAR 580-21-0140.

Policy: The University provides for regular post-tenure review of its faculty to encourage, to reward, and to promote the continuous development of tenured members of the faculty.

PREAMBLE

A. Faculty Governance and the Responsibility of Educators: The University of Oregon Charter

The Charter of the University of Oregon, adopted in 1872, places the governance of the University in the hands of its faculty, with the President at its head. According to the Charter, "The Faculty, consisting of the President and professors, shall be intrusted with the immediate government and discipline of the University." This system of governance imposes a solemn collective responsibility on the professors of the University of Oregon that is in addition to their individual responsibility to their students, their profession, and the larger society. The procedures described here are prepared with that responsibility of faculty governance in mind. Commitment to faculty governance requires substantial service obligations that must be recognized. The procedures are designed to help each professor, as an educator, more effectively discharge her or his individual responsibilities toward students, profession, and society.

B. The Responsibility of Educators, Academic Freedom, and Tenure

1. Individual Professional Responsibility. Society entrusts individual professors in its institutions of higher education with tasks of immense sensitivity: the education of its young people; the search for knowledge, wherever that search may lead; and the use of knowledge to help individuals and institutions in society progress and improve. To perform these tasks well requires a lifetime commitment to the profession of the scholar.

2. Academic Freedom. To persuade the best scholars to devote their lives to this profession, the University guarantees a healthy measure of freedom in their professional lives. The protection of that freedom-which is called academic freedom-is both the precondition to excellence in the professoriate and the precondition to the education of continuing generations of free citizens, in a free society. Therefore, academic freedom is guaranteed not primarily to benefit the professors, but to ensure benefits to society as a whole.

3. Academic Tenure. The primary method by which academic freedom is guaranteed is through a conditional grant of tenure with indefinite term. This grant of tenure is offered only to those professors who make it through a rigorous, probationary period. During that period, they bear the burden of proving their potential for lifelong excellence in teaching, research, and service. Those who sustain this burden of proof are then offered, in return, a commitment that the University will not later dismiss them without itself bearing a burden of proof that they are not performing as expected. Tenured professors are not guaranteed their jobs. They are, however, guaranteed that they will not be dismissed without academic due process. This guarantee is central to academic freedom and the societal benefits that it generates.

4. Evaluation In addition to the rigorous evaluation undergone by professors who obtain tenure, professors are continually evaluated by their students, by their local peers, and by a wide range of peers in their profession on a national or international basis after they have obtained tenure. Few professions are practiced as "publicly" as the profession of a university professor. Evaluation and review is therefore a continuing feature of the life of every professor.

5. The Dynamics of Professorial Careers. The focus of a faculty member's professional activities may shift over time. The nationally recognized criteria for obtaining indefinite tenure place approximately equal emphasis on demonstrated excellence in teaching and research, and considerably less emphasis on service. As tenured faculty progress through their careers, however, some may redirect their energies. Some may, for example, devote proportionately more time to teaching, advising, administration, and University service than they did as assistant professors. Consequently, expectations for, and the goals of, individual faculty members may also change. For the purpose of post-tenure review, the fundamental criterion is demonstrated excellence in meeting the expectations and goals established jointly by the faculty member and his or her department or program. If, for example, it is in the department's and University's best interest to have a tenured faculty member focus more on teaching and service than upon research, post-tenure review for that faculty member should emphasize, acknowledge, and reward demonstrated excellence in those areas. A key aspect of this program is therefore the collaborative establishment of professional expectations for each faculty member under review.

6. Collective Professional Responsibility for Faculty Development. In addition to their individual responsibilities, the faculty members in each administrative unit (department, program, school, or college) of the University of Oregon have a collective responsibility to help individual colleagues achieve excellence. The purpose of this procedure is to promote a high level of dialogue between individual faculty members, their colleagues, and heads of administrative units, so that each faculty member can draw upon the advice and resources of others in her or his pursuit of professional excellence.

A. Procedures of Individual Administrative Units

Each administrative unit at the University of Oregon will establish procedures for developmental post-tenure reviews. Each administrative unit will distribute a copy of its procedures to each member of the faculty at the beginning of each academic year. Alternatively, faculty can receive a reminder of the electronic site where such information is maintained.

Two levels of regular, developmental review are required of all tenured faculty who are not evaluated through the established Administrative Review process: (1) a major review every six years after a prior major review or promotion of rank, and (2) a comprehensive review at the three-year point after a major, six-year review or a promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.

It is the responsibility of the appropriate dean governing the administrative unit to ensure that the procedures described in this policy are followed each year. The evaluation of deans shall include reference to their success in ensuring that their faculties conduct timely post- tenure reviews.

B. Faculty Peer Committees

In each administrative unit, faculty peer committees comprising a minimum of two tenured faculty members will be responsible for sixth-year major reviews. Additionally, administrative units may decide to use faculty peer committees to administer third year reviews. The process for formation of committees will be decided by the faculty of an administrative unit. Options that may be considered include (1) the use of existing personnel committees of the administrative unit, (2) election of committee members by the unit as a whole, (3) appointment of committee members by the unit's chair on a rotating basis so as to cover all faculty members, or (4) another basis that ensures both fairness and excellence in the process. This committee should be formed by the end of the academic year prior to its taking responsibility for reviews described herein.

The peer committee review process is intended to be cooperative and developmental. It is not a disciplinary, sanctioning, or termination process, for which procedures are established elsewhere under OAR 580-021-0321, OAR 580-021-0325, and OAR 580-022-0045 and University policy.

C. The Third-Year Comprehensive Review

Third-year comprehensive reviews will be jointly conducted by each individual faculty member and a committee of her or his colleagues from the administrative unit.

Before the end of the academic year, the head of the administrative unit will identify and notify all tenured faculty members who will need a third year comprehensive review in the following academic year as described in "Schedule of Reviews" below. Notification also shall be sent to the appropriate dean and the administrative unit's peer review committee.

1. Self-Study. Each faculty member will review his or her teaching, research, and service contributions over the last three years (or more often, if the administrative unit so chooses), in a written evaluative letter. This self-study consists of materials assembled by the faculty member that must include:

a. A narrative including comments on goals set out by the faculty member in the previous 6-year review and any changes of direction or goals that the faculty member has instituted.

b. annual reports from the prior three years.

c. An updated curriculum vitae.

d. Copies of such peer teaching evaluations and student evaluations as are required by University policies and policies of the administrative unit.

In addition, the assembled materials may also include:

e. Supportive documents such as copies of publications, manuscripts, photographs of art objects, musical compositions, or reviews of performance.

f. Other evaluative information.

This self-study will be submitted by November 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

2. Review by Peers. The self-study review will be reviewed in the manner established by each administrative unit. A preliminary draft of the review will be given to the head of the administrative unit by January 15 of academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

3. Consultation. The head of the administrative unit, after receiving the self-study and preliminary review may initiate a joint consultation with the faculty member and all other colleagues participating in the review. In any case, the process of consultation will begin by February 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed and the consultation process will be completed by March 15.

4. Purpose of any Consultation. If a consultation ensues, its purpose is to clarify issues raised by the self-study and review, to provide constructive feedback to the faculty member regarding her or his review, to address resource issues, or to negotiate changes in plans or priorities. The process is to be cooperative and beneficial, not disciplinary.

5. Filing. Copies of the faculty member's written narrative, and peer review committee report, including any changes made during consultation, shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. The faculty member shall be given a copies and have the opportunity to attach a written statement to the peer review committee report within 30 days if she or he so chooses.

6. Notification. Upon conclusion of the third-year review, the head of the administrative unit then shall send the self-study, review, and any written statement prepared by the faculty member under the post-consultation process to the appropriate dean, along with a summarizing cover letter. This summarizing letter shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.

Sixth-year major post-tenure reviews will be jointly conducted by each individual faculty member and a committee of her or his colleagues from the administrative unit.

Before the end of the academic year, the head of the administrative unit will identify each faculty member who will need a sixth year major post-tenure review in the following academic year and will notify those faculty members. Notification also shall be sent to the appropriate Dean and peer review committee.

1. Initial Meeting. Initial Meeting. No later than October 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed, the peer committee shall design a plan and schedule for the developmental review, in consultation with the faculty member. The purpose of this initial meeting is to agree upon a process for assessing the faculty member's teaching, research, and service.

2. Self-Study. Each faculty member will review his or her teaching, research, and service contributions over the last six years, in a written evaluative letter, submitted to his or her faculty peer committee by November 15 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being reviewed.

The self-study will consist of an extensive and self-reflective analysis of the course of the faculty member's career, focusing specifically on the previous six years. The faculty member will provide:

a. A narrative including comments on goals set in prior reviews, and whether they have been altered; achievement of the original or altered goals, and areas where more work is planned; goals for professional development in the areas of research, teaching, and service at all levels for the next six year period and for her or his career; resource-related problems or other matters which appear to be limiting factors in reaching such goals.

b. A copy of the previous third year review, and annual reports since that review was conducted.

c. An updated curriculum vitae.

d. Copies of peer teaching evaluations and such student evaluations as are required by University policies and policies of the administrative unit.

e. Supportive documents such as copies of publications, manuscripts, photographs of art objects, musical compositions, or reviews of performance.

f. Other evaluative information.

3. Classroom Visits. Each administrative unit will ensure that it uses an effective method of peer observation of teaching, including classroom visits, in addition to its processes for peer review of research. Peer classroom visits will ensure that a faculty member is observed in a variety of settings, a condition that may be satisfied by a program of regular visits in various years.

4. Second Meeting with Committee. The peer committee and the faculty member shall meet again after peer observation of teaching and review of research and service have taken place, in order to discuss their impressions and initial conclusions. The goal shall be a collegial discussion about accomplishments, hopes, plans, and resources needed. Such a meeting shall be scheduled prior to the committee's evaluation of the faculty member.

5. Evaluation. The peer committee shall complete an evaluative report of the faculty member by March 1 of the academic year in which the faculty member is being evaluated. The report shall include a summary evaluation of the faculty member's performance during the previous six years. The following criteria shall be used:

a. Maintenance of high quality of teaching.

b. Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.

c. Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service

d. Service and activities on behalf of the larger communities

e. Any special criteria agreed upon by the peer review committee and the faculty member undergoing review.

6. Notification of Peer Review Committee Report The faculty member shall be given an unsigned copy of the peer review committee report. The faculty member then shall: a) sign the report and return it to the committee for countersignature, b) attach a written statement and sign and return the report, or c) proceed to mediation.

7. Mediation Process. Within 30 days of the receipt of the unsigned committee report, the faculty member may request in writing that a process of mediation be used to resolve issues in the report with which the faculty member does not agree. After such a request, the committee members and the faculty member will move expeditiously to jointly select a mediator. The mediator shall use her or his best efforts to revise the review so that it is mutually acceptable to the peer review committee and faculty member. If so, all parties shall sign the revised review. If the mediator, after using best efforts and a reasonable period of time, finds that the differences cannot be reconciled, she or he will provide a final notification to all parties that mediation has failed. At this point, the faculty member may attach a written statement and will sign the original review and return it to the peer review committee for countersignature.

8. Approval Process. The head of the administrative unit then shall send the self-study, peer committee review, and any written statement prepared by the faculty member under the mediation process to the appropriate dean, along with a summarizing cover letter. The dean shall then approve the review, or provide specific, written reasons for not doing so.

9. Notification. Copies of the faculty member's written narrative, the peer review committee report, any written statement by the faculty member following mediation, the administrative unit head's letter, and the dean's final letter shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file. Copies of the letters of the administrative head and dean shall be provided to the faculty member.

10. Appeal Process. Within a period specified in OAR 571-03-0000 et. seq. the faculty member may appeal to the University Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee, beginning when the faculty member receives the dean's decision letter on the review.

Appropriate administrative unit heads will determine the years in which faculty will undergo this review in accordance with these guidelines:

1. For Associate Professors, review will be timed so that a third-year review takes place in the third year after the awarding of tenure.

2. For Full Professors and Tenured Instructors, review will be timed so that those faculty who have served the longest since their last review will be the first to have their sixth-year reviews.

3. For those without reviews in the last six years, on a randomly-assigned basis.

4. In any year where the faculty member is reviewed for promotion to Full Professor, promotion review will substitute for the sixth year review.

5. Any faculty member at the rank of Associate Professor who has not attained the rank of Full Professor by the end of his or her sixth year after the awarding of tenure shall undergo the sixth-year major review during the seventh year after the awarding of tenure.

USE OF REVIEWS

A. Reward for Performance

1. The peer review committee, after conducting a sixth year review of a faculty member at the rank of Full Professor or Tenured Senior Instructor and determining that the faculty member has performed satisfactorily, shall recommend to the appropriate dean a $2000 increase to the faculty member's base salary. The dean shall forward this recommendation to the provost office.

2. The provost shall designate funds specifically to be used for these post tenure salary adjustments. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for other salary increases for merit, cost-of-living, administrative support accounts (ASAs), or other university-wide adjustments to salaries.

3. Third year comprehensive reviews shall be an element of annual salary adjustment decisions.

In order to support the goals set out in a faculty member's developmental review, the Provost shall allocate funds to administrative units for this purpose. Such funds are not to come from monies earmarked for salary or ASAs, nor are they to be used to increase the faculty member's salary or ASA. Rather, their purpose is to assist the faculty member in achieving professional goals set out in his or her six-year plan. So, for example, resources could be made available to support the preparation of new classes, the acquisition of technological capabilities, the pursuit of new research initiatives, or a number of other goals that might be outlined in the faculty member's developmental review. A faculty member will be allocated funds up to $1000 for pursuing his or her research and teaching goals.

C. Career Support Program

Upon recommendation of the peer review committee, the University shall provide to the faculty member such opportunities to improve performance as the following:

1. Consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas.

2. Appropriate reallocation of assignments within the administrative unit to facilitate updating and improvement in teaching or research.

3. Access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort.

4. Personal counseling.

If an additional sixth year post-tenure review finds the faculty member unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels, altered career plan counseling or early retirement opportunities may be provided by the University.