Annual Review of Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty

1. All tenured and tenure track faculty members, including department chairs and other school academic administrators, will be evaluated annually. If the review period coincides with approved leave, a comprehensive review for promotion, or appointment to an endowed position, the dean may approve a delay for up to one year from the regularly scheduled review date. In no case will review of a tenured faculty member be waived.

2. It is the responsibility of the dean to ensure that annual reviews of faculty are conducted by the department chairs/vice chairs/division directors. The dean of the appropriate school will conduct the review of chairs/equivalents. The President will perform the reviews of deans. Annual reviews of chairs/equivalents and deans will include input from faculty within the appropriate department/school.

3. Per school/unit guidelines, annual reviews will be conducted by the department chairs/vice chairs/division directors, with input from departmental faculty. In the School of Public Health, reviews will be conducted by a school-designated faculty committee. The review will include the chair/vice chair/division director or equivalent's evaluation of the faculty member, peer evaluations, and, for all teaching faculty, student/trainee evaluations. Records of the reviews will be retained by both the department/school and the faculty member per the Retention Schedule.

4. The evaluation shall include review of the faculty member's professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service, patient care, and administration. The review process will look back to evaluate accomplishments since the previous review period, assess whether goals previously identified were met, and assess problems encountered if goals were not met. The review process will also look forward to determine goals, expectations, and assignments, identify and resolve obstacles or conflicts to achieving goals and assignments, and determine appropriate resources needed to accomplish the goals and assignments.

5. The faculty member will submit a current curriculum vitae, a summary of professional accomplishments, and submit or arrange for the submission of teaching evaluations. The faculty member is encouraged to submit a summary of professional objectives, a proposed professional development plan and any additional appropriate material.

6. Information obtained in the review will be used to recognize level of performance and determine appropriate action(s). Each faculty member being reviewed shall be placed in one of the following categories in accordance with criteria developed by individual schools or units as provided in HOOP 111 Faculty Review:

a. exceeds expectations;

b. meets expectations;

c. does not meet expectations; or

d. unsatisfactory.

7. The results of the review will be communicated in writing to the faculty member; his or her dean; chair/vice chair or equivalent; division director if appropriate; the Chief Academic Officer (CAO); and the President for review and appropriate action. Deans will provide a certification to the CAO that all reviews have been conducted and a listing of those in categories C and D, along with plans for improvement, no later than January 31^st of the year after the year being reviewed. Any exceptions must be granted by the CAO upon a showing of a sufficient basis.

8. Possible uses of the information contained in the report and appropriate actions based on the report include the following:

a. The evaluation may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards, or other forms of performance recognition.

b. For individuals whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional support or a remediation plan, the evaluation shall be used to provide such support or a remediation plan (e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues/service expectations). Any remediation plan shall include a timeline for monitoring. Schools and/or departments, in consultation with a peer committee as defined in each school or unit’s procedures, shall monitor individuals receiving such support for evidence of improvement and, if there is insufficient improvement, shall take action under (d) or Section 9, below, if appropriate.

c. Individuals whose performance is unsatisfactory may be subject to further review and/or to appropriate administrative action.

d. Individuals whose performance is unsatisfactory for two consecutive annual reviews may be subject to a comprehensive review or action under (c) above or Section 9 below, if appropriate.

e. If incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken under Section 9 below.

9. For tenured and tenure-track faculty members for whom incompetence, neglect of duty, or other good cause is found, review to determine if good cause exists for termination under HOOP 133 Faculty Termination shall be considered. If disciplinary action other than termination is considered appropriate, such faculty members shall have access to procedures that include notice of the specific charges and a hearing prior to the imposition of disciplinary action. Any such hearing shall follow the procedures provided in HOOP 133 Faculty Termination.

10. Appeals by faculty will be conducted in accordance with HOOP 127 Faculty Grievances.