Policy Title

Post Tenure Review

Statement

The Post-Tenure Review Process at Winthrop is a system focused on sustaining faculty development beyond the point at which tenure is granted. 

Scope

Tenured Faculty

Policy Number:2.2.26
Effective Date:06/01/2020
Date Reviewed: 05/01/2020
Last Review Date: Jan 1 2024 12:00AM; 04/19/2021
Responsible Official: Provost
Responsible Office: Office of the Provost; Faculty Conference
Contact Information:

Academic Affairs

115 Tillman Hall

Rock Hill, SC 29733

803/323-2220

academicaffairs@winthrop.edu

Definitions

1.0 Specific meanings of bold terms seen throughout this policy can be found within the University's policy definition glossary by following the link below.

1.1 http://www.winthrop.edu/policy-definitions-glossary

A post-tenure review process was first established at Winthrop in response to the mandate in Act 359 (1996), South Carolina’s performance funding legislation that public institutions of higher education include in their faculty performance review systems periodic peer evaluation of tenured faculty members. In line with the AAUP’s definition, the Post-Tenure Review Process at Winthrop is a system focused on sustaining faculty development beyond the point at which tenure is granted.


Therefore the process is focused on sustaining faculty involvement in all aspects of the University and providing support for all faculty members as identified through the review process.


To receive a “Satisfactory” post-tenure evaluation, the tenured faculty member should provide evidence of continuing commitment to discharging academic duties conscientiously and with professional competence since the initial tenure decision, promotion, or previous post-tenure review. This involvement should include a record of promoting Student Intellectual Development, continued Scholarly Activity, and ongoing Professional Stewardship. Further, the faculty member should provide evidence of a record of sustained academic responsibility.


Timetable 


May 1 Office of the Provost updates post-tenure review list and notifies deans of those faculty to be reviewed the following year.


May 15 Deans notify faculty (and their department chairs) who will be reviewed in the following year. The list would exclude faculty who made application for promotion in the previous Fall.


Oct 31 Faculty member provides the department chair a list of faculty members to be considered for the review committee. 


Nov 15 Department chair selects the committee and forwards list to the dean for approval; faculty member is notified by the department chair of the committee membership. 


Nov 25 By November 25, faculty member may appeal the composition of the committee to the dean. 


Jan 10 Faculty member provides committee with materials for the review. 


Feb 1 Committee sends its report to the faculty member and department chair.


Feb 15 Faculty member responds to the report if he or she wishes. 


Mar 1 Department chair adds a written statement and forwards the report, with the faculty member’s response, to the dean.

 

Mar 15 In the case of “Satisfactory” ratings, the dean adds a statement and returns the report, with all supporting statements, to the faculty member. A copy of the department chair’s and dean’s response will be shared with the committee. A copy of the report and all supporting statements is kept in the dean’s office. 


Mar 30 The list of faculty members receiving “Satisfactory” reviews is forwarded to the Chief Academic Officer. 



In the case of “Unsatisfactory” reviews: 


Feb 1 Committee sends its report to the faculty member and department chair. 


Feb 15 Faculty member responds to the report if he or she wishes. 


Mar 1 Department chair adds a written statement and forwards the report, with the faculty member’s response, to the dean.

 

Mar 15 Dean adds a statement to the report and forwards all supporting materials and statements to the CAO, department chair, committee and faculty member. 


Mar 31 After conferring with the department chair and dean, the CAO responds in writing to the faculty member, dean, department chair and committee. If this response results in a “Satisfactory” rating, the dean’s office will maintain a copy of all reports and supporting statements. If this response results in an “Unsatisfactory” rating, the faculty member begins the development plan and will be reviewed again after two years. Review of satisfactory progress on the development plan at the end of two years will follow the same timetable as the original review. 


Apr 6 Appeals due to the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Promotion. 


Apr 20 Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Promotion forwards its response to the President, CAO, and faculty member. 


May 5 President’s response due to the faculty member, CAO and dean and to the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Promotion. A copy of the report on the President’s final decision is kept in the dean’s office.


All tenured faculty will participate in post-tenure review every six years. Faculty members will be reviewed six years after the year in which their tenure was effective, a post-tenure review was conducted, or a promotion was awarded. 


In the case of faculty seeking promotion during the year in which a post-tenure review is scheduled, the faculty should submit application materials based on the timeline for promotion established in Annual Timeline for Review Procedures at Winthrop. If promotion is granted then the post-tenure review is deemed to be satisfactory and the faculty member will stand for post-tenure review again in 6 years. If promotion is denied, the faculty member will stand for post-tenure review in the following academic year.


Exceptions to the six-year cycle of post-tenure review are as follows:

  • · If a faculty member who is scheduled for post-tenure review submits a letter of retirement and the retirement date is within two years of the scheduled post-tenure review, the faculty member will not have to participate in the scheduled post-tenure review. If the faculty member requests and is approved to rescind the retirement, a post-tenure review must be completed during the academic year following the rescission. · Faculty who take personal leave (e.g., sick leave, maternity leave, etc.) for longer than one semester may request, , that their review be deferred for a period appropriate to the duration of leave taken. The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) will rule on the deferral in consultation with the faculty member’s dean and department chair and inform the faculty member in writing of the year in which post-tenure review will take place. This deferral does not apply to faculty who have received sabbatical leaves or other leaves for development purposes.
  • · Faculty members who wish to request that their review be rescheduled (for example, because of a sabbatical or other leave for development purposes which will take them away from campus during the year post-tenure review is scheduled) should make their request in writing to the CAO, who will consult with the dean and department chair and inform the faculty member in writing whether the review will be rescheduled.
  • · Department chairs, associate deans, and assistant deans who are not full-time administrators will be reviewed according to the schedule and procedures for faculty members. Post-tenure review for full-time administrators holding faculty rank will be deferred. Regular review of full-time administrators is conducted through alternative processes involving faculty and staff from multiple units. Such faculty will stand for post-tenure after three annual review cycles in a position that is not full-time administration.


The Office of the CAO will maintain the post-tenure review schedule, notify the deans who will inform the faculty members when their post-tenure reviews will take place, and update annually the time-line for review. See calendar on Academic Affairs webpage


Required Materials

The Post-Tenure Review Portfolio will include the following items:


  1. A statement from the faculty member outlining work and development in the areas of Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility since the last tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review. Each category should include tables or lists clearly outlining activities. The faculty member is encouraged to describe any noteworthy accomplishments and to describe activity where the impact or time needed may not be apparent to reviewers.
  2. A statement of the faculty member’s goals and plans for involvement and development over the next six years.
  3. Annual reports from all years since last review (including student evaluation data, chair/immediate supervisor evaluations, and dean evaluations).
  4. Peer evaluations, if available.
  5. Current vita.
  6. Information about the outcomes of any sabbatical leave awarded during the six-year, post-tenure review period.
  7. Supporting documents pertinent to the review.
  8. If desired by a faculty member, the committee may send evidence of Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and academic responsibility to one or more reviewers outside the University. External reviewers will be selected by the committee in consultation with the faculty member being reviewed.


Post-Tenure Review Committee.

All members of post-tenure review committees will be tenured Winthrop faculty. No faculty member will serve on a post-tenure review committee in the year in which he or she is scheduled for post-tenure review. For review of faculty members, the committee will consist of one member from the candidate’s department if available, one member external to the department, and preferably a second member from the candidate’s department. For review of chairs and other administrators without full-time administrative duties, the committee will consist of one member from the candidate’s academic department if available; one additional member from the academic unit in which the candidate serves, and one chair, assistant dean, or associate dean from another academic unit.


The faculty member should submit a list of possible committee members to the department chair consistent with the composition described above. Review committees will be selected by the department chair in such a way that the majority of members come from the faculty member’s list of possible candidates. The department chair will submit the list of committee members to the dean, who will approve the committee as complying with post-tenure review policies and procedures. The dean will notify the chair and faculty member of the composition of the committee. The faculty member can appeal to the dean the appointment of any committee members who are not selected from the list provided.


The review committee will write a post-tenure review report evaluating the faculty member’s performance and including a rating of “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.” The report will provide evidence for the committee’s rating and suggestions for future performance and development. The committee will send copies of the report to the faculty member under review. A copy of the report and the post-tenure portfolio will be forwarded to the department chair or to the direct supervisor in cases of faculty in administrative roles. If the faculty member wishes to provide a written response, the faculty member must submit this response to the department chair/direct supervisor within two weeks of the notification of the decision.


The department chair or direct supervisor will review the committee report and portfolio, write a response, and forward all materials to the dean. The dean will also review all materials and reports, write a response, and forward information/materials as described below to the CAO. All statements will be sent to the faculty member as the portfolio moves to the next level of review.


Satisfactory Reviews

In the case of a “Satisfactory” review, the committee’s report will document areas in which the faculty member has excelled and make recommendations for future performance and development. In the case of a “Satisfactory” evaluation, the committee report cannot be overturned nor the rating changed to “Unsatisfactory” by the chair/supervisor or the dean.


A copy of the report and all supporting statements will be kept in the dean’s office. A list of faculty members who have received “Satisfactory” post-tenure reviews in a unit will be forwarded annually to the CAO.


Unsatisfactory Review

In the case of an “Unsatisfactory” review, the committee’s report will document ways in which the faculty member’s performance of specific duties and roles is unsatisfactory and will include a development plan.


The development plan must include:

  • · realistic goals and expectations for performance;
  • · activities to improve performance;
  • · a timeline for completing the development plan that allows for two annual review cycles by chairs/supervisors and deans that address the development plan;
  • · suggested resources to support the plan; and
  • · methods for assessing achievement of the goals and expectations, including peer and student evaluations of performance.


In the case of unsatisfactory reviews each response from the chair/direct supervisor and dean will include an indication of agreement or disagreement with the committee report.

Further, copies of the responses will be forwarded to both the faculty member and the chair of the post-tenure review committee. The dean will forward all materials to the CAO. The CAO will respond in writing to the dean and the faculty member indicating agreement or disagreement with the committee report.


If the department chair, dean, or CAO disagrees with the “Unsatisfactory” rating or with aspects of the development plan, they will discuss such disagreements. If two of them agree to either change the rating to “Satisfactory” or to modify the development plan, such changes will be made and communicated to the review committee and the faculty member.


If the department chair, dean, and CAO agree with the “Unsatisfactory” rating, another review of the faculty member’s performance will be conducted after the completion of the development plan. The department chair will retain a complete copy of the materials submitted for the review, the committee report, and any statements from the faculty member, department chair, dean, and CAO.


Appeals Process

The Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion will serve as the appeals committee in all cases involving post-tenure review.

Basis for Appeals. A faculty member may appeal the results of a post-tenure review rating for any of the following reasons:

  • · An appeal on the basis that the procedures and timetable posted were not followed or that the post-tenure review committee was improperly constituted or improperly directed, which resulted in an incorrect finding or recommendation.
  • · An appeal of the substance of the committee’s evaluation of the faculty member’s performance as “Unsatisfactory.” Such appeals should reflect a set of unusual or extraordinary circumstances and will require considerable supporting evidence, particularly in cases in which the review committee, department chair, dean, or CAO concurred in the evaluation.
  • · An appeal of the development plan, requesting an adjustment of the plan recommended by the review committee and approved by the CAO.
  • Possible Courses of Action. Depending on the nature of the appeal, the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion may recommend:
  • · that the evaluation of the post-tenure review committee be allowed to stand;
  • · that the development plan recommended by the review committee be revised; or
  • · that a new committee be constituted and the review process repeated in the following year, using the procedures established for all post-tenure reviews.
  • Procedures for Appeals. Any faculty member who desires to appeal should notify the CAO within five days of notification. Then within two weeks of receiving the CAO’s evaluation and development plan, the faculty member must forward to the President and the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion:
  • · A letter outlining the basis for the appeal and stating the desired outcome (revision of development plan or review by a  new post-tenure review committee).
  • · The entire post-tenure review package, including the committee’s report, any response from the faculty member, and the reports from the department chair, the dean, and the CAO.


Within two weeks of receiving the appeal materials, the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion will forward its findings to the President, the CAO, the dean, the department chair, and the faculty member. The committee’s report should reflect the basis and evidence for the appeal and recommend one of the courses of action listed above.


Within two weeks of receiving the report from the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Promotion, the President will report to the Committee, the CAO, the dean, the department chair, and the faculty member whether the development plan should be revised, whether a new review should be completed in the next academic year, or whether the post-tenure review committee’s evaluation should be allowed to stand. Should the President not respond to the Committee’s recommendation within two weeks, the Committee’s recommendation will be allowed to stand.


If this process results in a “Satisfactory” rating, the dean’s office will maintain a copy of all reports and supporting statements.


If the appeals process upholds an “Unsatisfactory” rating, the faculty member begins the development plan and will be reviewed again according to the timeline established in the development plan.


Second Review after an Unsatisfactory Evaluation

The second review will take place within three months of the completion deadline communicated in the development plan. If feasible, the committee that conducted the original review will be reconvened to conduct the second review. If a committee member is unavailable for the second review, a replacement will be chosen by the department chair in consultation with the faculty member.


The following materials will be provided to the committee by the faculty member and department chair:

  • · a complete copy of the materials from the first review;
  • · a statement from the faculty member delineating the activities undertaken during the development period with a self-evaluation of the outcomes;
  • · annual reports from all years since last review (including student evaluation data, chair/immediate supervisor evaluations, and dean evaluations);
  • · information on Student Intellectual Development, Scholarly Activity, Professional Stewardship, and/or academic responsibility needed to indicate progress identified in the development plan;
  • · copies of the results of any assessments required by the development plan;
  • · a statement from the chair documenting resources provided to support the development plan;
  • · an updated vita; and
  • · any other materials addressing progress within the context of the development plan.


The committee reviews the materials above and decides whether the faculty member has made significant progress toward addressing the problems identified in the initial “Unsatisfactory” review. The committee writes a report clearly indicating the recommendation and reasons for the decision. This report is forwarded to the chair and dean as established in post-tenure reviews to allow for statements to be provided. As in “Satisfactory” evaluations, this information is reported to the CAO by the dean.

If the committee returns an “Unsatisfactory” evaluation on the second review, the faculty member may add a response to the committee report within two weeks of notification. As in the case for regular post-tenure review, the response from the chair/direct supervisor and dean will include an indication of agreement or disagreement with the committee report.


Further, copies of the responses will be forwarded to both the faculty member and the chair of the review committee. The dean will forward all materials to the CAO.

The CAO will respond in writing to the dean, the chair, the faculty member, and the review committee indicating agreement or disagreement with the report.

If the department chair, dean, and/or CAO disagrees with the “Unsatisfactory” rating, they will discuss the rating. If two of them agree, the rating will be changed to “Satisfactory.”

 

As mandated by the Commission on Higher Education, if a faculty member fails to make substantial progress toward the performance goals outlined in the development plan within the specified time frame of the development plan and does not receive a “Satisfactory” on the subsequent review, the CAO can require that the development plan be continued for a specific time frame to include two complete annual review cycles or can recommend that the institution initiate procedures for dismissal of the faculty member, as outlined in the Winthrop University Faculty Manual.


AAUP Statement on post tenure review:

https://www.aaup.org/report/post-tenure-review-aaup-response

This section was intentionally left blank.

© Winthrop University · 701 Oakland Avenue · Rock Hill, SC 29733, USA · 803/323-2211