School of Nursing: Policy On Post-Tenure Review

Unit Policy

Title

School of Nursing: Policy On Post-Tenure Review

Introduction

Purpose

To provide guidance on post-tenure review in the School of Nursing.

Scope

This provides guidance on post-tenure review for associate professors, including those seeking promotion, professors and division heads.

Policy

Background

Each faculty member is subject to post-tenure review no less often than every five years following the conferral of permanent tenure. Reviews must examine all aspects of a faculty member’s academic performance and must involve faculty peers. While annual performance reviews may inform the post-tenure review process, they are not a substitute for a comprehensive post-tenure review. Comprehensive evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as a review for promotion, may be substituted for or combined with post-tenure review. A review may be delayed for compelling reasons approved by the Provost (see Appendix B).

Goals & Purpose

The goals of post-tenure review are to promote faculty development, ensure faculty productivity, and provide accountability. Accordingly, the purpose of post-tenure review at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by:

1. providing an opportunity to review five-year goal(s) and/or plans that are aligned with annual performance evaluations and consistent with the needs of the SON,
2. recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance,
3. providing for a plan and timetable for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient and,
4. for those whose performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition of serious sanctions, which may, in the most acute cases, include a recommendation for discharge.

The review will take into consideration the general expectations for the rank held by the reviewee and the faculty member’s assignments since promotion, tenure, or the most recent post-tenure review.

The goal of consistency across post-tenure reviews is paramount and should include the materials considered, the areas of focus in the review, and the nature and scope of recommendations made to the division head.

The post-tenure review process conforms to the policies and guidelines concerning post-tenure review adopted by the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina and by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Schedule for Review

Professors and tenured associate professors will be reviewed no less often than every five years, which means that at least by 4 years and 6 months since the last review the faculty member will be notified by the division head (or designee) of the upcoming post-tenure review. With input from division heads, the dean may schedule a review for an individual faculty member sooner than five years from the faculty member's last review if the dean has concerns about the faculty member's performance or to evaluate the success of a development plan previously created for the faculty member.

The division head should ascertain no later than August 1^st of the previous academic year the schedule of reviews for all associate professors who will be 4.5 years post tenure during the academic year and whether the faculty member is going to seek or defer promotion review. If the faculty member is deferring review for promotion, then the post-tenure review will occur during the upcoming academic year. Therefore, any associate professor who deferred an already scheduled promotion review in APT during the prior academic year, will have a post-tenure review during the upcoming academic year. 

When promotion to full professor occurs, the faculty member’s five-year post-tenure review schedule is based on the start of the full professorship. Should promotion not be awarded, the next post-tenure review will be five years after the promotion review up to the time that promotion does occur.

Committee membership

The Post-Tenure Review Committee will be composed of three (3) elected tenured faculty members, two (2) full professors and one (1) associate professor. The term for each committee member is three (3) years, with the possibility of serving two consecutive terms. When a full professor is being reviewed, at least one full professor committee member must be involved in the review.

All committee members will be knowledgeable about the SON and UNC Chapel Hill policies on post-tenure review. They will also complete the UNC General Administration digital training modules on guidelines related to personnel and tenure, the essential elements of a useful and thoughtful review, how to prepare, conduct and manage a meaningful review process, and how to provide constructive criticism in a positive manner.

Review Process

Post-Tenure Review includes the following process:

1. Prior to the academic year, the division head will have identified all faculty members who will need to undergo post-tenure review during the upcoming academic year. Each associate professor subject to post-tenure review in the upcoming academic year will need to declare, no later than the start of the academic year, if they will seek promotion to professor during the upcoming academic year. If promotion will be sought, no post-tenure review will be scheduled during the upcoming academic year.
2. Faculty members scheduled for review during the academic year will be notified by the division head (or designee) at least six months in advance to provide them with sufficient time to accumulate the review materials (see Attachment A).
3. At the beginning of each academic year, the Post-Tenure Review Committee will review the post-tenure policy and meet with the relevant division head to determine the faculty members for review during the year and any scheduling issues that need to be attended to for the year. The committee will arrange its own meeting schedule.
4. Post-tenure review should involve an examination of qualitative and quantitative evidence of all relevant aspects of a faculty member’s professional performance over the previous five years in relation to the mission of the SON and institution, as well as the assigned responsibilities of the faculty member, their interests and career stage.
   1. If a faculty member’s assignment(s) do not include the three primary missions (i.e., teaching, research, and service), but instead focus primarily on one or two of these areas, the review shall take this allocation of these responsibilities into account.
5. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will meet to review the provided materials and will prepare a written summary of its conclusions and recommendations to the faculty member undergoing review and the appropriate division head, who has the discretion to share the review with the dean. The Committee’s report shall include a discussion of how the faculty member’s performance meets, exceeds or does not meet expectations within the expected performance areas (e.g., scholarship/research, teaching, service, and practice) relevant to their rank and considering the faculty member’s interests, assignments, and the stage of the faculty member’s career. The report should identify and recognize performance that exceeds expectations. The process may also identify specific areas in which faculty members can improve and, in such cases, the process should result in specific recommendations and plans for improvement. It is important that there is transparency in the review and subsequent recommendations and that these recommendations are consistent across reviews.
6. For faculty members whose overall performance is seen as meeting or exceeding expectations, the division head will discuss the report of the review committee with the faculty member, with no further actions being needed.
7. For faculty members whose overall performance is seen as not meeting expectations, the report of the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities, directional goals established, and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties. When shortcomings are identified, a comprehensive plan for improvement (aka a development plan) should be prepared by the division head as addressed below. The division head will meet with the faculty member to examine all aspects of their post-tenure review and overall performance.
8. The faculty member being reviewed will be given an opportunity by the division head to provide a written response to the Post-Tenure Review Committee’s report. The division head will maintain, as a part of the faculty member’s confidential personnel file within the SON, a record of the report and any response to it.
9. For a faculty member whose overall performance reflects substantial deficiencies, a comprehensive plan for improvement (i.e., a development plan) will be prepared, jointly, by the division head and the reviewed faculty member. The development plan will reflect the post-tenure review evaluation and recommendations from the Committee’s report.
   1. Each development plan will be individualized, flexible, and take into consideration the intellectual interests, abilities, and career stage of the specific faculty member. It will also respect the needs of the division, the SON, and the Institution. The development plan will include clear goals, steps to achieve those goals, indicators of goal attainment, a clear and reasonable time frame for the completion of goals, resources available for implementation of the plan, and an explicit statement of the consequences of failure to attain the goals. Annual reviews will be used to assess the progress made toward the goals that were spelled out in the development plan. The division head will acknowledge in writing a faculty member’s clear improvement along with the successful completion of a development plan.
10. A faculty member whose overall performance has been found to show substantial deficiencies and for whom a development plan has been recommended has the right to appeal the findings of the Post-Tenure Review Committee and the recommendation for a development plan. The initial appeal is to be submitted in writing to the SON Dean. Before the decision on an appeal, the dean will meet individually with the faculty member, the division head, and, if deemed necessary, one or more members of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The dean will prepare a written summary of the appeal; the decision reached by the dean will be final.
11. In the case of a faculty member who fails to successfully complete their development plan and whose performance continues to be deficient, the division head will notify the dean of the SON. The Dean will then consider whether grounds for disciplinary action up to and including dismissal exist under the Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure.

Records

The SON will maintain a list of the faculty members reviewed each year, a record of completed reviews and responses to the reviews, and the names of all faulty members for whom a development plan was recommended and a copy of the development plan. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will send to the dean the number of faculty members reviewed during the previous year, the number of faculty members for whom a development plan was recommended and established, and the number of faculty members who are subject to review, but for whom a delay was approved by the Provost along with the compelling reason(s) for the delay.

Periodic Review of Post-Tenure Review Process

The APT Committee will evaluate and, if deemed necessary, revise the post-tenure review process every five years.

Exceptions

N/A

Definitions

N/A

Related Requirements

N/A

Contact Information

Policy Contact

Mary R. Lynn, APT committee chair

Other Contacts

N/A

Important Dates

• Effective Date and title of Approver: 10/19/2009, APT Committee
• Revised: 04/2015; 12/2019; 2/2020; 4/2021

Approved by:

Mary Lynn

APT committee chair