Introduction

The University of Colorado鈥檚 post-tenure review policy is described in , which states:

鈥淧ost-tenure review (PTR) is a summative evaluation over a five-year review period. The purposes of PTR are to facilitate continued faculty development and to ensure professional accountability to the university community, the Board of Regents, and the public.鈥�

After tenure is granted, there is an expectation of continued professional growth and productivity in the areas of teaching (or librarianship), scholarly and creative work, and leadership and service. These reviews are conducted by primary units and the dean's offices, and submitted to the Office of Faculty Affairs. Faculty Affairs is charged with annual reporting of post-tenure review results to the University of Colorado System Office.

Overview

The post-tenure review (PTR) process begins with the award of tenure, and the initial PTR occurs five years after the faculty member is granted tenure and recurs at five-year intervals unless interrupted by promotion review or leave. Promotion serves to re-start the PTR clock.

Each primary unit shall have written guidelines that conform to the campus procedures and APS 1022:

  • A primary unit鈥檚 PTR guidelines shall describe the criteria that will be used to evaluate faculty and shall indicate what level of performance is required for a faculty member to be considered 鈥渕eeting expectations鈥� in teaching (or librarianship), scholarly and creative work, and leadership and service (and, if indicated in primary unit criteria, other activities relevant to the specific unit). They shall also take into account differentiated workloads. The primary unit PTR guidelines and criteria must be approved by the dean of the college/school/library and the provost.

The steps below describe the procedure followed by the Boulder campus in fulfilling the University of Colorado鈥檚 policies on Post-Tenure Review and Faculty Performance Evaluation. Questions concerning application of these policies can be directed to the dean鈥檚 office or the Office of Faculty Affairs.

Post-Tenure Review Procedures on the Boulder Campus

  1. Each tenure home unit should have a post-tenure review (PTR) committee, comprising tenured faculty peers within the campus, either primary unit faculty or, if needed, faculty of the appropriate college personnel review committee. If a primary unit does not have sufficient tenured faculty members to staff the PTR committee, it may ask a tenured faculty peer from another primary unit to fill in. The size of the committee should be defined in the primary unit鈥檚 bylaws or PTR guidelines. Faculty undergoing PTR shall not, in that year, serve on the committee that conducts PTR.
  2. The post-tenure review committee shall provide an evaluation of the faculty member鈥檚 performance and shall provide a brief narrative explanation of that evaluation. The post-tenure review committee will examine at least the following:
    • Five-year annual review history
    • Five-year FCQ history
    • Peer evaluations of teaching and other multiple means of teaching evaluation, as available
    • Professional plan(s) from last cycle (if required or provided)
    • Updated professional plan for upcoming year (if required or provided)
    • Faculty member鈥檚 CV
  3. The post-tenure review committee will pursue the following process:
    • The committee shall provide an evaluation of the faculty member's performance as either outstanding, exceeding expectations, meeting expectations, below expectations, or fails to meet expectations in each of the areas of teaching (or librarianship), scholarly and creative work, and leadership and service (and, where indicated in primary unit criteria, other activities relevant to the specific unit), and shall provide a brief narrative explanation of that evaluation.
    • A copy of the committee鈥檚 report will be given to the faculty member by the primary unit head or dean, depending on whether the PTR is undertaken by the primary unit or college/school.
    • The faculty member is expected to review the report and approve it or append a response.
    • The primary unit forwards the report and any comments to the dean.
    • A copy of the report is placed in the faculty member鈥檚 personnel file within the dean's office and the Office of Faculty Affairs.
    • The reports will be forwarded to the dean, who will provide a summary report and copies of the individual reports to the Office of Faculty Affairs on the results of all the post-tenure reviews in the college/school.
    • Annually, Faculty Affairs will provide a summary report on post-tenure review to the System Office of Academic Affairs, who will forward the campus summary reports to the president and the Board of Regents.
    • Faculty members who fail to participate in any aspect of the post-tenure review process, as required, may be subject to sanctions for neglect of duty, which may include reduction in salary, reassignment of duties, unpaid suspension, or dismissal for cause.
  4. Faculty members who do not agree with the annual performance rating may request a peer review of their annual performance record using the established primary unit process or a specific written process developed by the unit for this purpose. Subsequently, faculty members who believe the primary unit's evaluation is incorrect may appeal the rating through established grievance procedures in the college/school. This appeal process should be completed within six weeks or less from the date it is initiated by the faculty member, and no action will be taken to begin a PIA until this appeal process, if invoked, is completed.
  5. While in typical circumstances PTRs will occur every five years, the faculty member may submit a petition to delay the post-tenure review for up to one year when it is in the best interest of the individual and the campus. Faculty members who have signed a formal and binding retirement contract shall undergo post-tenure review as scheduled until their retirement begins. If the retirement date is within one year of the scheduled PTR and it is in the best interest of the individual and the campus, the faculty member may submit a petition to delay the post-tenure review. Any such delays would be contingent on approval by the primary unit head, the dean, and the provost or their delegate.

Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA)

  1. Faculty members who receive an evaluation of 鈥渂elow expectations鈥� or 鈥渇ails to meet expectations鈥� in any of the evaluated areas, must agree to a Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA) (See for more information on the performance improvement agreement).
  2. Working with their supervising administrator or an appropriate committee of the primary unit (as determined by primary unit policy), the faculty member develops a PIA that includes specific goals, timelines, and benchmarks that will be used to measure progress at periodic intervals. Usually, PIAs will be established for one year, but if research deficiencies warrant longer, the PIA may be set up for two years. The dean鈥檚 office should be available to provide advice to the faculty member as needed.
  3. The next annual merit evaluation following the term of the PIA shall address whether the goals of the PIA have been met.
    • If the goals of the PIA have been met, the faculty member continues in the current review cycle, whether for comprehensive review, tenure, or post-tenure review.
    • If the goals of the PIA have not been met, an extensive review process needs to be initiated.

Extensive Review

An Extensive Review take place whenever a faculty member establishes a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by two evaluations of performance "below expectations" or 鈥渇ailing to meet expectations鈥� in a five-year period or failure to meet the goals of a PIA.

  1. For an extensive review, the post-tenure review committee will examine at least the following:
    • The most recent PIA
    • Five-year annual performance evaluation history
    • Five-year FCQ history
    • Peer evaluations of teaching and other available multiple means of teaching evaluation
    • Evidence of scholarly and creative work and clinical productivity
    • Professional plan(s) (if required or provided)
    • Any differentiated workload agreements
    • Faculty member鈥檚 written self-evaluation of performance
    • Record of leadership and service activities
    • Any other material submitted by the faculty member
  2. The post-tenure review committee shall write a summary evaluative report of the faculty member's teaching (or librarianship), scholarly and creative work, clinical activity, and leadership and service, and it shall share this report with the faculty member. The report must contain an enumerated list of 鈥渄eficiencies.鈥� This report is not subject to approval by the faculty member. The form used by the Boulder campus for the evaluative report is known as the Post-Tenure Review Evaluative Report (available in the Forms section of the A-Z Info Guide of the Faculty Affairs website).
  3. Upon receipt of the evaluative report, the faculty member must write a Development Plan within 20 calendar days. The Development Plan should cover the next one or two years, and must include the following:
    • A description of performance goals, strategies for attaining goals, and a timeline for attaining goals for each deficiency listed in the evaluative report; and
    • A description of the specific means of measuring progress towards or achievement of goals.
      鈥婽he development plan form used by the Boulder campus is known as the Post-Tenure Review Development Plan.
  4. The post-tenure review committee must review a draft of the faculty member鈥檚 development plan and provide written feedback to the faculty member and to the primary unit head. If the faculty member revises the development plan, the post-tenure review committee shall review subsequent drafts and make a recommendation to the primary unit head to accept or not accept the development plan. The primary unit head shall accept the plan, or work with the faculty member to develop an acceptable plan.
    In the case where either the primary unit head or the faculty member feels that an impasse has been reached, both parties shall follow the provisions defined below:
    • When either the primary unit head or the faculty member feel that an impasse has been reached, the matter shall be referred to the college/school personnel committee (in units where the college or school is the primary unit, the dean鈥檚 review committee shall serve this function).
    • The college/school personnel committee shall consider the materials assembled for the extensive review, the recommendation of the post-tenure review committee, and any additional materials submitted by the two parties or requested by the personnel committee, and make a decision about the parts of the development plan that are at issue, resulting in an approved development plan.
  5. At the completion of the development plan period (1 or 2 years), the primary unit head, in consultation with the post-tenure review committee as needed, will assess the progress of the faculty member towards meeting the goals of the development plan and then shall submit to the dean (or to the provost in cases when the primary unit head is the dean) a report and recommendation as to whether or not the development plan goals have been met satisfactorily.
    • Following consultation with the college/school personnel committee, the dean shall make a recommendation to the provost. If the goals have been met, the faculty member shall prepare a new Professional Plan and begin a new five-year PTR cycle.
    • If the goals have not been met, the provost, after consultation with the Vice Chancellor's Advisory Committee (VCAC), shall recommend sanctions to the chancellor. The chancellor will review the provost鈥檚 recommendations and impose appropriate sanctions. If the chancellor decides to recommend the revocation of tenure and dismissal of the faculty member to the Board of Regents, the Laws of the Regents provide the faculty member with an opportunity for a hearing and set other conditions for handling such cases ().
    • Possible sanctions are defined in APS 5008 on faculty performance evaluation and may include the following: suspension of pay, salary reduction, and demotion in rank; and revocation of tenure and dismissal.