3.12.B.4 - Post-Tenure Review (PTR)

According to USG policy, “all tenured faculty members who have rank and tenure with an academic unit must undergo post-tenure review five years after the award of tenure and subsequently every five years unless it is interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank (Associate/Full Professor) or academic leadership promotion (e.g. department chair, Dean, Associate Provost). A corrective post tenure review follows the same process and outcomes as a regularly scheduled post tenure review. If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock” (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7).

The BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook goes on to note, “A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit by informing the department chair in the annual review workflow. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual 5-year cycle. Early post-tenure reviews should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since they were last evaluated for tenure or a previous post-tenure review, whichever was most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next post-tenure review will be five years from the voluntary PTR post-tenure review date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the 5-year PTR review date remains in place.” (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

I. Process for Post-Tenure Review (PTR)

Although the primary evidence considered by review committees/administrators for post-tenure review is the five most recent annual evaluations and a current curriculum vitae, faculty members for post-tenure review must submit all materials listed on the Portfolio Document Submission List (see below). Supporting documentation is also submitted. External letters are not required for PTR.

The process begins with the faculty member submitting the required post-tenure review portfolio to the digital workflow. This digital workflow will then be routed to the department chair who will conduct the first level of review. The department chair will have the option of adding any feedback to the annual reviews that are already included in the documentation.

The review of post-tenure portfolios for faculty then proceeds to the College P&T Review Committee. A letter indicating the committee’s evaluation must be uploaded into the digital workflow. The committee’s post tenure review letter will include an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in the quality and significance of a faculty member’s performance in the context of individual roles and responsibilities. The letter will also include an overall assessment of whether the faculty member is meeting expectations in post tenure performance, using the same 5-point scale as described for annual reviews (Section 3.12).

The review then proceeds to the Dean. At each level, a letter indicating the reviewer’s assessment must be uploaded into the digital workflow. This assessment will contain specific and detailed reference to the department promotion and tenure review guidelines used to justify the recommendations and decisions that have been made.

Within 10 calendar days from the date of Advance of the review recommendation at each level, the faculty member has the right to respond to a committee’s or administrator’s review and justifications by submitting a letter written by the faculty to the reviewing committee or administrator for the information of the next level of review. The faculty member will place the response letter into the digital portfolio workflow. The response letter should address the interpretation of the information in the portfolio, but it should not include new evidence to be considered in the review process. The reviewer (committee or administrator) does not respond to this letter.

The appropriate supervisor must meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of PTR. In the event of an unsuccessful PTR (rating of 1 or 2) the faculty member must be informed in writing of next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

Expedited Post-Tenure Review

As the annual review documents constitute the “primary evidence” for multi-year reviews, faculty members receiving ratings of “3” (“meeting expectations”) or above in all areas of faculty review, as well as in their overall annual reviews during the 5-year period under PTR consideration, may submit an expedited PTR review. Expedited PTR reviews will contain all annual reviews (along with any rebuttal or response documentation) for the period under review, along with a shorter narrative (3-6 pages recommended with a 12-page maximum). No additional materials will be required for the portfolio to be considered complete. Faculty receiving a “1” or “2” rating in any area of review or in their overall annual reviews during any given year under PTR consideration, will submit the standard (full) set of portfolio materials.

Monetary PTR Rewards

If the final rating on the five-point scale in a regularly-scheduled post-tenure review is a 4 or 5, the faculty member will receive a one-time monetary award. Faculty will then be eligible for the same award in five years (and no sooner than five years) at their next post-tenure review. Faculty who undergo a corrective or voluntary post-tenure review, on the other hand, are not eligible for this one-time award.

II. Performance Improvement Plan

In the event of a post-tenure review that does not meet expectations (1) or needs improvement (2), the faculty member’s appropriate supervisor(s) and faculty member will work together to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the review committee based around the deficiencies found by the committee. Consistent with the developmental intent of the PTR, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

The following parties should be involved in the creation of a PIP, in the monitoring of the faculty member’s progress towards completion of the plan, and in verifying the plan’s completion:

The affected faculty member.
The academic home department chair/school director.
The dean of the faculty member’s academic home.
An optional fourth colleague -the affected faculty member may ask one of the members of the College Review Committee to serve as this fourth principal.

The affected faculty member will be free to seek mentors, as needed, for the successful completion of the plan.

This work may begin as soon as the first level committee issues an evaluation of 1 or 2. The PIP is not finalized until the Dean issues the final evaluation of the post-tenure review.

The PIP should include the following:

A set of realistic goals that are achievable within the timeframe of the Performance Improvement Plan.
A set of realistic strategies for achieving those goals.
A realistic measurement.
A realistic timeline.
Available resources for enacting strategies and achieving goals.
Set meetings between the chair and the faculty member (including the PIP planning meeting) twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters.

In addition to setting forth realistic goals that are specific and achievable during the evaluation period, the PIP should fit within the faculty member’s situational context and workload. It should address the issues that caused the 1 or 2 rating(s). Important note: Faculty cannot be required to fulfill their PIP while they are off contract.

Examples of such goals and strategies may include:

Attend development activities (seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.)
Seek mentorship, either inside or outside the department (may be facilitated by chair; mentor may have duties re-assigned to facilitate this)
Produce updated curriculum or other work products
Develop and/or disseminate scholarship
Produce reflective evaluation of any area that resulted in the 1 or 2 rating.
Undertake leadership or other active roles in service activities

The PIP must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs via the electronic portfolio system by the last day of the current academic year contract. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

Twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters, meetings must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, planned accomplishments for the upcoming time period. Before each meeting, the faculty member will submit a summary of progress (may be an interactive vita) into a digital workflow. After each meeting, the academic administrator should summarize the meeting and indicate whether the faculty member is on track to complete the PIP in writing in the digital workflow. The assessment of the PIP will take the place of that year’s annual review. The department chair and dean will assess whether the faculty member demonstrated substantive progress. (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

If the College P&T Committee, the chair, and the dean find that the faculty member demonstrated no substantive progress towards remediating the deficiencies identified in the PIP, the department chair and dean will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. The letter indicating Dean’s assessment and proposed action is sent to faculty member for response (10 calendar days). (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

The five-year clock for post-tenure review will be restarted in the year in which an individual has successfully completed a formal PIP.

III. PIP Follow-up Actions and Due Process

According to USG policy, in the case of a faculty member who has failed “to make sufficient progress in performance, then the institution will take appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies.” (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)

Note that complete resolution of the deficiencies is not necessary for the successful completion of a PIP. The USG policy only requires that faculty “demonstrate sufficient progress in performance” (BoR Faculty and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7). It is an option that an action recommended for an unsuccessful PIP be an additional year on a PIP.

Unsuccessful PIPs, therefore, will not be equal in seriousness and nature, and thus, each situation will require a calibrated and proportional set of corrective actions. In the selection of corrective actions, the department chair and the dean should weigh the nature of the deficiencies identified in the PTR report and the faculty’s effort in working to successfully complete the PIP.

Examples of corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:

Continuation of PIP, without eligibility for pay increase
Temporary loss of any preferences earned (i.e., seniority)
Temporary workload adjustments imposed.
Temporary loss of preferred teaching schedule.
Temporary loss of summer teaching or other paid opportunities
Reduction of salary
Loss of tenure
Termination from KSU

Due Process Following an Unsuccessful PIP

Upon request by the faculty member, the University Committee will review the materials that attest to performance improvement plan progress and the proposed remedial action and make their recommendation. If the faculty member does not request a review by the University committee, the Provost will make the final determination on remedial action. If the faculty member does want to request a review by the University Committee, the faculty member has 10 calendar days from receiving the recommendations of the dean/dept. chair to request the University PTR committee review. If received within 10 calendar days, the request will be granted.

The following due process will be followed for the University Committee review:

The University Committee will review the recommendation of the department chair and dean. The University Committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary. The recommendation of the committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The University Committee will issue its recommendation to the Provost and the faculty member within 20 calendar days of the request for review by the faculty member.
Within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the University Committee, the Provost shall send an official letter to the faculty member notifying him or her of the remedial action.

The Provost’s remedial action may include, but not be limited to, suspension of pay, salary reduction, revocation of tenure, and separation from employment. If the remedial action is separation from employment, and only in that case, the faculty member has the right to request a final faculty hearing for the purpose of confirming that due process was followed in reaching the decision of separation of employment. If the faculty member requests a formal hearing within 5 calendar days of receiving the Provost’s official letter, the Provost will grant that request.

The following procedures will be followed for the final faculty hearing:

If the institution does not have a final dismissal hearing committee as a standing committee of its faculty’s legislative body, a PTR final dismissal faculty hearing should be formed within 5 calendar days of receiving the faculty member’s request and consist of not fewer than three, but not more than five, impartial faculty members appointed by the executive committee (or its equivalent) of the highest legislative body of the faculty, from among the members of the entire faculty of the institution. Members of the hearing committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the faculty. The hearing committee should elect a chair from its membership. The entire process of the hearing and written recommendation from the final hearing committee to the President must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date of the faculty member’s request for a hearing.
The hearing committee will notify the faculty member recommended for dismissal in writing at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
Prior to the hearing, the hearing committee will review all documentation relevant to the post-tenure review of the faculty member.
During the hearing, the faculty member should have the opportunity to make a statement to the committee, respond to the documentation reviewed by the committee, and answer any questions from the committee.
The President and the faculty member shall be notified in writing of the recommendation of the hearing committee within 10 calendar days of the hearing, whether that recommendation be dismissal or any penalty less than dismissal, providing supporting reasons.
The President may or may not follow the recommendation of the committee, but, within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation, the President should notify the faculty member and the hearing committee regarding the decision and the supporting reasons. The President should also notify the faculty member of the discretionary review process as provided for in the Board of Regents Policy: BoR POLICY 6.26 APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
If the remedial action taken by the President is dismissal, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in the faculty member’s current role, with the President outlining the faculty assignments to be completed prior to the dismissal date. (See BoR Academic and Student Affairs Handbook 4.7)