II - 1.19 - Policy on Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty
I. Policy and Purpose
The general purpose of the periodic review of tenured faculty shall be to foster faculty development, assess individual faculty performance over time in order to reward performance, and seek to improve performance when appropriate in keeping with the individual department/unit and/or campus mission. The University shall implement a period comprehensive review of tenured faculty as part of a broader faculty development program. A secondary purpose is to articulate the process of tenured faculty review in the context o the University's inclusive annual review of all faculty (see BSU Policy II.1.20: Evaluation of Performance of Faculty).
A. Scope: This policy requires a comprehensive review of each tenured faculty member at least every five (5) years. In order to achieve these reviews, each Department shall establish a calendar to comprehensively review an appropriate percentage of faculty each year in order to review all faculty in the Department in the five years. The calendar shall require those faculty members with the longest tenure to be reviewed first. Each review shall provide a first comprehensive review or shall evaluate a faculty member's performance since the last comprehensive review and shall also provide an opportunity to establish a professional development plan to serve as p art of the basis for the next comprehensive review. Two (2) consecutive annual reviews that indicate that a tenured faculty member is not meeting expectations shall occasion an immediate comprehensive review, which shall be in addition to those otherwise required by this policy.
Further, this policy is in addition to other University System of Maryland (‘USM") and institutional policies and procedures concerning faculty evaluation although, where possible, a review under this policy shall be considered in decisions on promotion or other rewards; merit pay, however, shall be based on annual evaluations. This comprehensive review process shall not be substituted for the USM and institutional policies and procedures relating to the termination of tenured appointments, which are in no way amended by this policy.
B. Eligibility: This policy applies to all faculty on indefinite tenure appointments.
C. Responsibility: The Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, via faculty peers, Department Chairs, and College Deans, shall ensure that the comprehensive review is implemented and that University resources are available for needed faculty development, including student assistants, secretarial services, release time, travel, conferences, dues, library resources, etc.
D. Evaluation Criteria (Principles of Implementation)
1. The general purpose of the periodic review of faculty shall be to foster faculty development, assess individual faculty performance in order to reward performance and to seek to improve performance when appropriate in keeping with the University's mission.
2. The periodic review shall be a collegial assessment of teaching, research/scholarship, and service of individual faculty and shall provide an opportunity for tenured faculty members to review past performance and develop future plans in the context of institutional and personal objectives.
3. The periodic review shall also be undertaken for the improvement of the academic program to which the reviewed faculty member contributes.
4. The period review shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the preservation of academic freedom and research/scholarship.
III. Evaluation Criteria and Portfolio Responsibilities
A. Evaluation Criteria
1. The faculty member shall be evaluated in three (3) areas: instruction, research/scholarship, and service. The evaluation shall be based on the faculty's own pre-stated annual percentage of time that he/she will focus on each of the above three (3) areas.
2. Evaluation information shall be required in the following areas:
a) Instruction: syllabi, teaching/advisement load, student evaluations, peer evaluations, awards;
b) Research/Scholarship: publication, presentations, conference attendance, research grants written/awarded, other scholarship activities; and
c) Service: university/college/department committee service, and service to the profession.
3. In addition, the faculty member shall complete a self-evaluation form covering his/her performance in the past five (5) years.
4. The faculty member shall also complete a five (5) year development plan, which shall include time-lines.
5. The information provided for review shall be used in reaching a decision as to the following decision categories:
a) "Meetings expectations";
b) "Exceeds expectations"; and
c) "Fails to meet expectations."
B. Portfolio and Other Responsibilities
1. The faculty member shall be responsible for providing information, with supporting documentation, for the fifth (5th) year of the review.
2. The Department Chair and the faculty member shall be responsible for the faculty member's last four annual reviews. The faculty member shall be free to add information, with supporting documentation, to those last four (4) annual reviews.
3. The University shall be responsible for providing resources to support the faculty's development plan. The development plan shall be accompanied with a proposed budget that shall be submitted to the Provost and the President for their consideration and approval.
C. The College Dean's Role
1. The College Dean, in consultation with the Department Chair, shall establish a comprehensive review cycle for all tenured faculty within the College.
2. Annually, the College Dean, in consultation with the Department Chairs, shall provide a charge and guidelines to the College Evaluation Committee.
3. The College Dean shall monitor the implementation of the faculty's development plans.
4. The College Dean shall monitor the appeal process, if any appeals.
D. The Department Chair's Role
1. The Department Chair shall coordinate the annual performance evaluation of all faculty by the faculty's students, peers, and chair.
2. The Department Chair shall communicate, via a conference and in writing, the results of the annual evaluation to the faculty member and allow the faculty to provide a written response to the evaluation.
3. The Department Chair shall maintain a faculty dossier, in which the annual faculty evaluations are maintained, including any faculty written response.
4. If two (2) of a faculty member's consecutive annual reviews indicate that a faculty member is "materially deficient in meeting expectations", the Department Chair shall develop a peer review committee as stipulated in Item 6 below.
5. Upon request, the Department Chair shall provide the tenured faculty member slated for review with requested materials from his/her dossier.
6. The Department Chair shall provide to the College Dean a summary of the annual evaluations for the review period of the faculty member slated for review. In addition, the Department Chair shall establish a committee of peers in the reviewee's discipline to determine whether the reviewee is meeting expectations in his/her discipline. If the reviewee is found not to be meeting expectations, the name of the reviewee is forwarded in written form to the College Dean, who shall coordinate an immediate comprehensive review in keeping with Items E and F below.
7. Department Chairs shall be subject to review by the Department faculty. The chair shall be evaluated for his/her performance as a faculty member.
E. The Tenured Faculty's Role
1. The tenured faculty member slated for review shall submit a performance portfolio for his/her contributions in the areas of teaching, research/scholarship, and service for the period of the review.
2. The tenured faculty member also shall submit his/her future plans for contributions in teaching, research/scholarship, and service.
3. The tenured faculty member shall have the right to review the summary of evaluations of his/her Department Chair and to have a written statement forwarded with the summary
F. The College Evaluation Committee's Role
1. The College Evaluation Committee shall be composed of five (5) faculty members, with a rank the same as or higher than that of the faculty members slated for review, whenever possible. These faculty members shall be selected from the same or an allied discipline as that of the tenured faculty member being reviewed.
2. The College Evaluation Committee shall meet the first (1st) week of November to establish a time-line and deal with other logistics.
3. The Chair of the College Evaluation Committee shall communicate its time-line and reporting format to the College Dean, Department Chairs, and tenured faculty slated for review.
4. The College Evaluation Committee may request additional information from the faculty member, the Department Chair, and/or the College Dean.
5. The College Evaluation Committee shall conduct its review in keeping with the best practices of confidentiality.
6. The College Evaluation Committee members are elected by college faculty. There is to be equal representation from each Department in the College or representation is to be proportional to the size of each Department's faculty. Each Department is to have one (1) elected member for each full-time ten (10) faculty members assigned to the department, rounded to the nearest tenth upward; departments with between 15 to 20 full-time faculty members would have two (2) elected representatives.
7. The elections shall be conducted by the College Elections Committee.
8. If a conflict of interest is alleged against a Committee member, the College Dean shall investigate and make a determination about whether a conflict actually exists. If a conflict is found to exist, an alternate shall be elected to serve.
9. The Chair of the College Evaluation Committee shall be elected by the College Evaluation Committee.
10. The Chair's term of service as Chair shall be for one (1) academic year, starting in August and ending on June 30, the following year,
11. The responsibilities of the Chair of the College Evaluation Committee are:
a) Coordinate with Departmental Chairs for the collection of required evaluations on faculty member notified for review during the academic year.
b) Provide an analysis of the evaluations produced by the reviewee and the Department.
c) Maintain confidential records on all persons reviewed.
d) Develop and maintain a list of tenured faculty members and a priority list of those who are eligible for evaluation.
12. A quorum is constituted by having a simple majority present for a meeting.
13. The term of service of each member shall not exceed two (2) years of service.
1. Faculty to be evaluated shall be selected by random means based on statistical sampling techniques. The number of faculty reviewed each year shall be determined by each Department based on the eligibility list maintained in each Department.
2. The following time-line shall be adhered to in this review process:
a) August 15. By no later than August 15 of each year, each College Dean shall notify each tenured faculty member slated for review, that the review process is to be implemented and to prepare the faculty member's portion of the Performance Portfolio.
b) September 7. By no later than September 7 of each year, the College Dean, the Department Chair and each faculty member slated for review shall, in accordance with this policy, submit to the Chair of the College Evaluation Committee their requested portions of the Performance Portfolio.
c) October 1. By no later than October 1 of each year, each department shall elect member(s), as needed, to serve on the College Evaluation Committee ("CEC").
d) November 1. By no later than November 1 of each year, the members of the CEC, as well as any alternates to the CEC, shall meet. At the first meeting, a chair shall be elected. The Committee shall also review its charge from the College Dean and Department Chair as well as complete any other necessary business.
e) February 7. By no later than February 7 of each year, the College Dean, the Department Chair and each faculty member slated for review shall, in accordance with this policy, submit to the Chair of the CEC their required portions of Performance Portfolio.
f) February 15. By no later than February 15 of each year, the Chair of the CEC shall notify the College Dean and the Department Chair if any required document is missing from a Performance Portfolio of any of the tenured faculty members slated for review. The College Dean and the Department Chair shall take appropriate action to ensure that any missing documentation, including documentation required to be supplied by a faculty member, is received by the Chair of the CEC by no later than February 28.
g) February 28. By no later than February 28 of each year, the CEC shall meet to begin review of the Performance Portfolio.
h) April 1. By no later than April 1 of each year, the CEC shall complete its recommendation to the College Dean for each reviewed tenured faculty member. The recommendation shall indicate whether a faculty member's performance meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or fails to meet expectations. If a faculty member's performance fails to meet expectations, the CEC may make recommendations about how a faculty member can improve his/her performance so that it meets expectations. A copy of the recommendation shall be sent to the tenured faculty member.
i) April 9. By no later than April 9 of each year, if a tenured faculty member does not agree with the CEC's recommendation to the College Dean, the candidate may appeal the recommendation in accordance with Item 3 below.
j) May 7. By no later than May 7 of each year, the CEC's recommendation for each reviewed faculty member shall be forwarded to the College Dean for review and evaluation. If a faculty member appeals the CEC's recommendation, the Appeals Committee shall also furnish its recommendation to the College Dean by no later than May 7.
k) May 20. By no later than May 20 of each year, if a faculty member's performance is not judged as meeting expectations, a specific development plan shall be worked out among the Dean, the Department Chair, and the faculty member, consistent with the overall faculty development programs and resources, if appropriate, for faculty development. This plan shall in include a procedure for evaluation of progress at fixed intervals and shall be signed by the Dean, the Department Chair, and the faculty member.
l) May 25. By no later than May 25 of each year, the Dean shall issue a written evaluation for each reviewed faculty member. A copy of the written evaluation shall be forwarded to each reviewed faculty member, the Department Chair(s), the Chair of the CEC and, if applicable, the Chair of the Appeals Committee. If a faculty member's evaluation indicates that he/she does not meet expectations of the development plan established by the Dean in conjunction with the Department Chair and the faculty member, a review by the CEC shall be initiated to determine the relevant cause(s) for the tenured reviewed faculty member's performance.
m) May 30. By no later than May 30 of each year, each College Dean shall provide the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs with a full report on the comprehensive evaluation of the tenured faculty members reviewed in accordance with this policy.
n) June 1. By no later than June 1 of each year, each reviewed faculty member shall return to the College Dean a receipt, signed and dated by the faculty member, which acknowledges that the faculty member received a copy of his/her written comprehensive review.
3. Grievance Procedure
a) A faculty member reviewed under this policy may appeal the CEC's recommendation to the College Dean to the College Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee shall be composed of two (2) elected faculty members from each Department.
b) Within seven (7) working days after the completion of the CEC's recommendation concerning a faculty member's comprehensive review, the faculty member shall submit his/her request for an appeal to the College Appeals Committee. The request for an appeal shall state clearly and concisely the recommendation about which the candidate is appealing and with particularity the reasons the tenured faculty member believes that he/she deserves a different evaluation recommendation.
c) Within fourteen (14) working days after receipt of an appeal request, the Chair of the College Appeals Committee shall convene a Hearing on the appeal. This appeal is not an adversarial, trial-type proceeding. Instead, it is a limited review of a discretionary decision concerning whether a faculty member meets the requisite criteria in the areas of instruction, research/scholarship, and service as well as whether the faculty member meets the workload criteria established by the University System of Maryland System Policy on Faculty Workload and Responsibilities (II.1-25).
d) The College Appeals Committee will ordinarily hear from the candidate, the Chair of the Department and the Chair of the CEC. In some circumstances, the Appeals Committee may hear from other individuals with knowledge of the faculty member's professional performance. The committee will not consider materials not included in the Performance Portfolio, unless good cause is shown why such material should be included in the Portfolio.
e) The same confidentiality accorded to the CEC review process shall be observed in any proceedings before the College Appeals Committee.
f) At any point during the appeal process, the College Appeals Committee may, through the President, request the advice of the Office of the Attorney General on legal issues presented by the appeal.
g) After the completion of the Hearing, the College Appeals Committee shall make a recommendation to the College Dean concerning the faculty member's appeal. The Appeals Committee's function in making this recommendation is limited to reviewing the proceedings leading to the CEC's recommendation. Accordingly, the Appeals Committee shall recommend a departure from the CEC's recommendation only if it finds that the faculty member demonstrated clearly:
(i) that the CEC's recommendation was based on an illegal or impermissible factor which violates freedom of speech or prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, age or handicap;
(ii) that the CEC's recommendation was arbitrary, capricious, and injudicious because it was based on clearly erroneous information, or was wholly unsupported by information before the CEC; or
(iii) that the procedures established by this Policy were violated and that the violation was so significant as to cause clear prejudice to the faculty member.
h) The College Appeals Committee shall not substitute its judgment for that of the CEC. Further, it shall not recommend a departure from the CEC's recommendation on the grounds that one or more of the review criteria were given greater weight than others or that particular materials were considered more significant than other materials.
i) The College Appeals Committee shall provide its recommendation to the College Dean within ten (10) working days after the conclusion of the Hearing. Copies of its written recommendation shall also be provided within this same ten-day period to the candidate, the Department Chair, and the Chair of the CEC. The College Dean shall make a recommendation to the Provost, who shall make a final recommendation to the President. The President's decision shall be final.
A system for the comprehensive review of tenured faculty conducted in a manner consistent with the preservation of academic freedom.
Effective Date: 12/22/1998