Policy on Review of Tenured-Faculty

In accordance with Faculty Document 1001b adopted by the Faculty Senate on 19 April, l993, the Department of Statistics has established the following policy on the review of tenured faculty. Please see in addition

1 Purpose

The purpose of the review of tenured faculty is to assess each tenured faculty member’s performance and contributions to the mission of the department, interdepartmental programs, the college and the university. The review is intended to encourage development and improvement of faculty skills and to assess whether a faculty member is satisfactorily performing his or her duties. Where appropriate, strong performance should be duly noted. Discussion of deficiencies should focus on constructive suggestions for improvement. For faculty with joint appointments, the goals and conduct of the review will be coordinated with the department comprising the other part of the faculty member’s appointment, wherever possible.

2 Procedures for Previously Existing Reviews

Because of the complexity of merit negotiations in a department with a substantial fraction of joint appointees in many different departments and programs, the regular merit review of all tenured and untenured faculty members has traditionally been delegated to the Department Chair. The review of probationary faculty members for reappointment and promotion is conducted by the Executive Committee in accordance with procedures adopted in February 1992. The review of Associate Professors for possible promotion is delegated to the Committee of Full Professors.

All members of the faculty are requested to provide an updated Curriculum Vita and an annual report for these reviews. Teaching evaluations, including both written comments and numerical evaluations, are made available for these reviews. Data on patterns in teaching evaluations over a period of several years are also made available.

3 Criteria

The normal duties of a faculty member in the College of Letters and Science include teaching, research and service. Those faculty with joint appointments in other departments may have other regular duties such as providing statistical consulting services and taking part in collaborative research projects.

In general, our faculty are expected to be committed, conscientious, and effective teachers at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and to continue throughout their careers to be productive and innovative scholars. Furthermore, it is expected that all members will share the burdens of administration, advising, and other committee and service tasks.
Areas of performance that shall be considered in the review include:

  • Teaching: Courses taught, number of students in each course and grade distribution, student evaluations of courses; number of graduate student supervised, number of Ph.D. theses completed; time spent advising students, new course development, participation on preliminary and final Ph.D. examinations; books, laboratory or solutions manuals and other teaching aids written; applications for instructional grants; awards recognizing teaching contributions and excellence.
  • Research: Areas of research interest; applications for grants; grants awarded for research support; papers published, papers in press, manuscripts submitted; awards recognizing research contributions; invited and contributed talks and lectures on research; research plans.
  • Service: Departmental, college and campus committees; planning of national or international meetings or symposia; reviews of manuscripts for refereed journals and of research proposals for funding agencies; editorships; participation and offices in professional societies; and contributions to the scholarly activities of the department.

4 Procedures

Each tenured faculty member shall be reviewed every 5 years unless delayed because the faculty member is on leave. When appropriate, reviews will be combined with promotion or other reviews including but not limited to nominations for major teaching awards, chaired professorships, and national honors and awards. In the case of combined reviews, supplementary documentation may be required.

The most important attribute of the post-tenure review process is that it is to be constructive, so that genuine communication can occur between the Review Committee and the individual under review, to the benefit of the Statistics Department and the individual. To help ensure that these goals are met, a post-tenure review procedure committee, called the Procedural Committee hereafter, will be established to serve as an oversight committee of the review process. We describe below a step-by-step process to ensure that proper procedures are followed and the review is fair.

During the startup of the post-tenure review process, an ordering will be made of all tenured faculty for review. This order may need to be modified under certain conditions, such as promotion to Full Professor or faculty on leave of absence. By November 1, 1995 the Procedural Committee will have completed a master schedule including (1) the order for all tenured faculty needing review and (2) all dates of notification and deadlines for receipt of materials for faculty reviewed during the current academic year. In each year subsequent to 1995, the Procedural Committee will complete by October 1 a master schedule for all dates of notification and deadlines for receipt of materials for that academic year.

4.1 Procedural Committee for Review of Tenured Faculty (“Procedural Committee”)

The Procedural Committee shall have the responsibility for selection of Review Committees, determining dates and time deadlines for the various stages of the review, and general oversight over the entire review process. The Committee is made up of three members of the Department Executive Committee. Members will be selected annually by secret ballot by the Executive Committee. No faculty member due to be reviewed in a given year may serve on the Procedural Committee during that year. It is expected that the composition of this Committee will represent faculty covering the breadth of interest represented in the department.

4.2 Review Committee

The Procedural Committee will select a tentative Review Committee for each faculty member who is reviewed. It is anticipated that the committee will collectively include members knowledgeable about the reviewee’s research, teaching, and service. For full professors, the Committee will consist of full professors only. For associate professors, there must be a least one full professor on the Review Committee. At most one member of the Procedural Committee may serve on any given Review Committee.

The Procedural Committee will present the names of the tentative Review Committee to the faculty member under review. The faculty member has two weeks from the receipt of the notice to voice objections about the proposed Review Committee members. If the faculty member objects to any members of the proposed Review Committee, those members will be replaced without question. In this case, the Procedural Committee will present the name(s) of an alternate member(s) to the Review Committee, possibly after consultation with the faculty member under review. Communication shall continue between the Procedural Committee and the faculty member until an acceptable Review Committee is formed. The deadlines for determination of the final composition of the Review Committee is six weeks from the receipt of the notice unless there are extenuating circumstances.

4.3 Protocol

  1. The Procedural Committee will notify each individual being reviewed and remind the individual of his/her rights and responsibilities with respect to the review, including:
    1. The right to object to one or more members of the Review Committee.
    2. The right to suggest knowledgeable people who could serve on the Review Committee.
    3. The right to be informed of a reasonable deadline (two weeks from the date of receipt of notification of the review by the Procedural Committee) for responding to items a. and b. above. The deadline can be extended if the faculty member requests an extension and the Procedural Committee feels the situation warrants an extension.
  2. The Procedural Committee will request materials from each individual under review unless such materials have already been requested for the purpose of some other review. Each individual under review will be given eight weeks to submit the requested materials. The deadline can be extended if the faculty member requests and extension and the Procedural Committee feels the situation warrants an extension. The material requested include:
    1. Current vitae.
    2. Annual activity reports filed since obtaining tenure or since the last review (not to exceed five years.)
    3. Teaching evaluations for the last five years and student comments for the past two years.
    4. A summary of career plans for the future.
    5. An optional activity report covering the entire period under review to bring out progress toward long-term goals, or other materials providing evidence of accomplishments.
    6. Any other materials the individual under review thinks would be relevant.
  3. The Procedural Committee will forward the individual’s materials to the Review Committee and will notify the appropriate Review Committee that proper procedure has been followed so that the committee can proceed with the review.
  4. The Review Committee will read and evaluate the submitted materials. The evaluation will include a discussion of the submitted materials, the individual under review may be asked to submit additional materials. The evaluation will be performed according to the criteria detailed in the policy. The spirit of the review procedure is to be constructive. The same standards should be applied to all individuals reviewed.
  5. The Review Committee will forward a draft of its report to the individual under review and provide the individual with the opportunity to discuss the draft report with the Committee.
  6. Based on possible reconsideration following item #5, the Review Committee will finalized the review, and prepare a brief summary for transmission to the Dean.
  7. The reviewed individual will have the opportunity to respond in writing to the review and the review summary.
  8. If there is a substantial disagreement between the Review Committee and the reviewed individual, the Procedural Committee will arrange for the review to be discussed by the entire Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will recommend whatever action, including modification of the review and/or review summary, it deems appropriate.
  9. If there is substantial agreement between the Review Committee and the reviewed individual, or between the reviewed individual and the Executive Committee’s action, the brief review summary and the response to it from the reviewed individual, if any, will be submitted to the Dean, and the review and any response will be placed in the individual’s personnel file. If the Executive Committee has been asked to discuss the review, the brief review summary agreed to by the Executive Committee and any response from the reviewed individual will be submitted to the Dean. The review and any response will be placed in the individuals personnel file.

5 Accountability

Copies of this policy shall be filed with the Dean of the College of Letters and Science. A record of reviews completed shall be maintained, including the names of all reviewers. At the end of the academic year, a report listing those faculty reviewed and a summary of the outcome of the reviews shall be sent to the Dean of the College of Letters and Science.

This policy can be modified by a simple majority of the Executive Committee subject to approval by the Dean of the College of Letters and Science. The periodic review of the Department of Statistics shall include a review of this policy.

6 Implementation

Upon final approval of this policy, up to five professors chosen at random and/or under review for promotion or award and/or scheduled in another department shall be reviewed each year. The scheduling needs to ensure that all tenured professors are reviewed within five years and at no more than five year intervals after that.

Updated: 8 April 2016 Created: 13 October 1995; online 26 September 2012.