Unit Procedure
Title
School of Law: Post-Tenure Review Procedure
Introduction
Purpose
The overarching purpose of post-tenure review at the School of Law is to serve as an additional means of fostering the School's mission of educational excellence, including its goal of providing high-quality instruction to its students and contributing to the development of the law through scholarship and service. In order to achieve this purpose, the review process should assist individual faculty members in their ongoing professional development, in particular in their efforts to enhance their skills as teachers, their accomplishments as scholars, and their contributions to the profession and the public. The review process is intended to foster constructive dialogue between colleagues that will be characterized by fairness, mutual respect, a desire to learn, open-mindedness, and appreciation for the importance of academic freedom. The process of review will also serve to enhance a sense of accountability within the law school and the university. The process will conform to the Framework for Implementation of Post-Tenure Review adopted by the UNC-CH Board of Trustees and the University of North Carolina Board of Governors.
Scope
This policy applies to all tenured faculty members of the School of Law at UNC Chapel Hill.
Procedure
Expectations of Faculty Members
All members of the faculty of the School of Law are expected throughout their careers to maintain the standards of excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service that are set forth in the Law School's tenure and promotion policy. Evaluation of performance will take into account changing expectations at different stages of faculty careers as well as the impact of specific duties and assignments such as administrative assignments as Dean or Associate Dean.
If a faculty member is reassigned to other duties (e.g., department chair or academic unit head) for .50 FTE or more or is occupying a leave-earning position (e.g., SAAO Tier I or Tier II), that faculty member shall not be required to undergo post-tenure review until having completed a five-year cycle following the reassignment.
Schedule for Review
a. Cycle of review
The number of faculty members to be reviewed in any given year will be approximately 20% of the number of tenured faculty members. All tenured members of the faculty will be reviewed in five-year cycles. Members of the faculty appointed or promoted to tenured positions will participate in the process of post-tenure review no later than five years after the effective date of tenure. If necessary, adjustments in the schedule of review will be made to meet the needs of individual faculty members and the institution.
Requests to delay an upcoming post tenure review should be submitted to the faculty member's department chair/unit head in advance to ensure timely departmental processing of the request.
- Requests must be submitted using the Review Deferral Request Form and specify the compelling reason(s) for the request to delay the review.
- Requests must include a written justification from the department chair/unit head, and be approved by the next level administrative officer (or their designee).
- Request forms should be submitted to the Office of Faculty Affairs at facultyaffairs@unc.edu for review and approval. Once the request is reviewed, a notification will be sent from the Office of Faculty Affairs to the faculty member, the department chair/unit head and the next level administrative officer indicating whether the request has been approved.
- If the request is approved, the faculty member's academic unit must then complete an electronic action in the existing system, with the approved form attached, to finalize the change to the Post Tenure Review date.
b. Notice
Faculty members who will undergo post-tenure review in any given year will be advised by the dean of the upcoming review as early as possible, but in no event later than September 1 of the academic year in which the review is to take place.
c. Relation to other forms of review
The system of post-tenure review will supplement, rather than substitute for, other systems of review, including those relating to tenure and promotion, annual evaluation in years prior to tenure, appointment to distinguished chairs, salary determinations, yearly evaluation meetings with the dean, or personnel actions taken pursuant to University policies on tenure and promotion and other matters relating to faculty conduct and performance. However, a promotion review may be used as an alternative to post-tenure review if it occurs prior to the fifth year after the initial promotion to tenured associate professor.
Process
a. General principles
The faculty believes that the post-tenure review process should be as simple, straightforward, fair, functional and flexible as possible, so that the purposes of the review process are achieved in both an effective and time-efficient fashion.
b. Obligation of confidentiality
All post-tenure review matters relating to individual faculty members will be regarded as confidential in character. All faculty members who participate as members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee or otherwise advise on individual cases will abide by this requirement.
c. Participation by faculty member being reviewed
Each faculty member who is to undergo review in a given year will take an active role in the post-tenure review process by assisting with planning, preparing relevant background information, engaging in constructive dialogue with colleagues and the dean, and undertaking a faculty success plan if needed to address deficiencies in performance.
Effective upon the award of tenure, and coincident with the start of each post-tenure review cycle, faculty should develop, in consultation with their department chairs, long-term work plans that are aligned with annual performance evaluations and consistent with the expectations of the department/school. These long-term work plans will cover the five years of the post-tenure cycle.
d. Composition of Post-Tenure Review Committee; Related Faculty and Dean Assistance
The Dean will appoint annually a Post-Tenure Review Committee, as provided for under University policies. Working with the faculty member being reviewed, the Dean and the Tenure and Promotion committee will, to the degree deemed appropriate, arrange for additional members of the faculty to provide assistance through visitation of classes and review and comment upon scholarly writing. All members of the committee will complete required training(s) applicable to this activity as described in The University Post-Tenure Review Policy (link provided below).
e. Information to be considered during review process
The review process will be conducted in a way that provides the faculty member being reviewed, the Dean, and the members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee with relevant information concerning the faculty member's accomplishments and plans in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service.
Information to be considered will include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Brief Personal Statement and Self-Evaluation by faculty member.
In a document provided by the school, the faculty member being reviewed will prepare a written brief personal statement and self-evaluation indicating his or her accomplishments during the past five years (and, in the case of the initial review, his or her accomplishments during the period since tenure). Where appropriate, this may be accomplished by cross reference to the faculty member's curriculum vitae. The faculty member should also state his or her plans for the next five years and his or her thoughts on ways in which the school could assist in his or her professional development. The long-term plan should include goal(s) that are aligned with annual performance evaluations. Subsequent annual work plans and evaluations required by the University Policy on Faculty Workload should correspond with this long-term work plan unless modified in consultation with the dean.
ii. Background information.
The faculty member will also prepare a file that includes a current curriculum vitae; teaching evaluations (that have been maintained by the faculty member since the date completed) and a "teaching portfolio" if desired; a list of scholarly materials completed since the last review (with an indication of the most important materials); and, upon request of the committee, any such materials; information concerning significant professional and public service; and other relevant materials. As appropriate, the Dean and the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee will arrange for colleagues to read and comment on scholarly materials or other relevant background information. Peer visitation of classes may be conducted, as appropriate, in order to enhance the insights of the faculty as a whole about teaching and provide relevant information on the faculty member being reviewed. Upon request of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, the Dean will work with the faculty member being reviewed and the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee to make relevant arrangements. The Dean may also provide additional information that may be pertinent, including information developed during periodic merit reviews and information relating to the faculty member's ongoing work within the institution.
f. Consultation between faculty member being reviewed, Post-Tenure Review Committee, and Dean
As appropriate, the faculty member being reviewed will meet with the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the Dean in order to discuss teaching, scholarship, service, and other accomplishments. In preparation for such discussions, the committee and the Dean will carefully read and consider all relevant information concerning the work of the faculty member being reviewed.
g. Determination regarding overall performance
i. Written Summary Regarding Teaching, Scholarship, & Service
The Post-Tenure Review Committee will provide a written summary of its conclusions to the faculty member being reviewed and to the Dean. The summary will include a statement as to whether the committee concludes that the faculty member being reviewed is performing at a satisfactory level or has substantial deficiencies in performance that need to be addressed through creation of a faculty success plan, when the overall rating is "does not meet expectations." The summary will include an assessment reflecting whether a faculty member exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or does not meet expectations with regard to each category - teaching, scholarship, and service. Such assessment shall be based on the following standards regarding teaching, scholarship, service developed for tenure:
(a) Teaching.
"Committed and effective teacher": This term has two components. "Committed" refers to the continuing, career-long effort to maintain one's teaching at the highest possible level. This effort should include keeping abreast of relevant developments in law and scholarship; adjusting course content as appropriate to take account of such developments; continually reassessing the effectiveness of one's teaching methods, making adjustments if needed; and responding to students' reasonable requests for assistance outside of class. An "effective" teacher is one who develops and implements coherent plans for courses and individual classes; prepares thoroughly; uses teaching methods that are appropriate to particular contexts; communicates with students, whether the teacher is lecturing, questioning students, or responding to students questions; manages class discussion well and at an appropriate intellectual level; and grades student work fairly, with reasonable promptness, and in a manner that is appropriate to the nature of the work. This definition is not intended to state a preference for any particular method or style of teaching. On the contrary, it is intended to recognize that a great range of methods and styles—for example, Socratic questioning, lecture, making extensive use of technology, etc.—can be highly effective, depending on the teacher and the context.
(b) Scholarship.
"Significant scholarly accomplishment with the promise of continued future achievement": "Significant scholarly accomplishment" means the production of scholarship that reflects the ability to identify significant issues; creativity; the ability to carry out research appropriate to a particular topic, and to use the research effectively to support one's assertions and conclusions; analytical skill; and the ability to communicate one's positions effectively. Scholarship at this level is worthy of serious consideration in important scholarly debates. "The promise of continue future achievement" is demonstrated by the quality of a faculty member's current work; the commitment to scholarship that it reflects; and the development, at least at a preliminary level, of a coherent longer-term scholarly agenda, or otherwise meet the standards set out for "engagement" through scholarly endeavors. To achieve the designation meets expectations in scholarship, a faculty member should produce the equivalent of two articles as defined in the School of Law's Promotion and Tenure Policy in the paragraph titled "Specific Quantitative Expectations" (as adopted in February 2013 and amended November 2013) since the grant of tenure or the most recent subsequent post-tenure review.
(c) Service.
"Demonstrated commitment to service": This means seeking and accepting opportunities for engagement and other forms of service at a level reasonably commensurate with one's other duties.
(d) Evaluation of Performance.
A faculty member "Exceeds Expectations" for Post-Tenure Review if they exceed the described standard of performance with respect to one or more categories of teaching, scholarship, or service and satisfies it as to any other or others. A faculty member "Meets Expectations" for Post-Tenure Review if they satisfy the described level of performance on each of the three categories of teaching, scholarship, and service, or if substandard performance in one area is offset by performance in one of the other areas that exceeds the described level. A faculty member "Does Not Meet Expectations" if their overall performance on teaching, scholarship, or service falls below the described level of performance.
ii. Faculty Member’s Response to Review
In accordance with UNC-Chapel Hill policy, the committee will provide information to the faculty member under review and allow the faculty member the opportunity to provide feedback in a timeframe that aligns with the university's policies.
iii. [Dean's additional review]
The Dean will provide a written evaluation review in addition to the review conducted by the Post-Tenure Review Committee and must consult with the review committee in rendering their evaluation.
h. Establishment and monitoring of a faculty success plan
In the event that the Post-Tenure Review Committee concludes that the faculty member being reviewed has a record of overall performance that reflects substantial deficiencies that need to be addressed, and has recommended the establishment of a faculty success plan, the Dean and the faculty member being reviewed will meet to develop a success plan designed to assist the faculty member in curing deficiencies in performance. The success plan will include clear goals, indicators of goal attainment, a specific and reasonable time frame for the completion of goals, and a clear statement of consequences if the goals are not reached. The performance of a faculty member who has been found to have substantial deficiencies in overall performance and who is working on completion of a success plan will be reviewed by the Dean on an annual basis for a period of up to three years until such time as substantial deficiencies have been remedied. In the event that substantial deficiencies in performance continue to exist at the end of the three-year period, the Dean will consider whether action should be initiated pursuant to the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure or other steps taken to address the substantial deficiencies in performance.
i. Maintenance of confidential written record
The Post-Tenure Review Committee and the Dean will develop a written summary of the committee's conclusions and will share that summary with the faculty member being reviewed for comment. The faculty member being reviewed may submit written comments to the committee and the Dean in response to the written summary. The Dean will maintain the committee's written summary and the response, if any, by the faculty member being reviewed as part of that faculty member's confidential personnel file, along with all background information and other materials used in connection with the review.
j. Recognition of outstanding performance
In instances in which the faculty member being reviewed is found to have evidenced outstanding overall performance, the Dean will endeavor to recognize that performance through appropriate forms of positive recognition, including but not limited to nominations for awards.
Appeals and Reports to the Provost
a. Appeals of findings of substantial deficiencies and development plans
Faculty members found by the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the Dean to have substantial deficiencies in performance and for whom a faculty success plan is established may appeal the finding of substantial deficiency or the terms of the faculty success plan within 30 days of receiving a final letter from the Dean including such findings and faculty success plan. Appeal rights are provided for in the University's policy on post-tenure review.
b. Annual reports filed with Provost
As provided in the University policy on post-tenure review, the Dean will file annual reports to the Office of the Provost specifying the names of faculty members reviewed during the previous year, the names of faculty members for whom a development plan was recommended and established, and the names of faculty members who were subject to review in that year but for whom a delay was requested (along with the reasons for delay).
Periodic Assessment of Post-Tenure Review Process
The Dean, members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, and the faculty members who are reviewed, will periodically assess the school's experience with the post-tenure review process. The Dean will report to the faculty as the need arises regarding any ways in which the process might be improved.
The University Post-Tenure Review Policy is available online at http://academicpersonnel.unc.edu/faculty-policies-procedures-guidelines/reviews-and-performance-management/tenured-faculty-post-tenure-review/. The UNC Policy Manual contains the Board of Governors recommendations adopted May 16, 1997, at http://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/policy/index.php?pg=vs&id=391&added=1.
Related Requirements
External Regulations
Contact Information
Primary Contact
Name: F. Andrew Hessick, Dean
Email: law_dean@unc.edu