7.3.8 Post Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review Schedule

Each tenured faculty member must undergo post-tenure review at least once every sixth year, except that a tenured Associate Professor or Librarian III may elect to undergo review for promotion to Professor or Librarian IV, respectively, instead, with the understanding that the posttenure review clock is reset by the promotion review.

Faculty members holding the rank of Professor or Librarian IV are eligible to seek a superior post-tenure review rating in their sixth year in rank at the College or any subsequent year subject to two conditions:

  • A faculty member may not receive a superior post-tenure review rating more often than every sixth year, and
  • A faculty member who makes an unsuccessful application for a superior rating may seek a superior again the next year but may not apply for a superior rating more than two years in a row. Additionally, a faculty member seeking a satisfactory rating (who has not subsequently been promoted to Professor) is eligible to pursue a superior rating the following year and the subsequent year should that faculty member’s initial application for a superior rating be unsuccessful. (Rev. Aug. 2017; Aug. 2018)

Rating of Candidates

  • Ratings of a candidate will take one of three forms:
    1. Superior Rating
      The superior rating is awarded to candidates who continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the standards of the Faculty/Administration Manual.
    2. Unsatisfactory Rating
      Candidate has exhibited evidence of habitual neglect of duty, which means consistently and regularly failing to fulfill the terms and conditions of appointment, as laid out in the Faculty/Administration Manual's section on "Termination of Tenured Faculty Members 'for Cause' and Termination Procedure."
    3. Satisfactory Rating- All other candidates
  • Presumption of Satisfactory Performance
    The Post-Tenure Review Committee operates on a presumption of satisfactory performance. That is, the burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) for a superior performance lies with the candidate, and the burden of proof for an unsatisfactory performance, including with completion of a remediation plan, lies with the Department Chair (or department post-tenure review panel). When a faculty member is not appointed to an academic department, the relevant Program Director shall serve in the role of Department Chair for purposes of the post-tenure review.
    The Post-Tenure Review Committee can request additional information at any time during their deliberations.
    (Rev. Aug. 2017)

Forms of Post-Tenure Review

  • Consideration for Satisfactory Rating
    For a tenured faculty member who wishes to be considered for a satisfactory rating, in the spring semester of the sixth year following the previous extra-departmental review, the chair will review with the faculty member the details of the faculty member’s performance evaluations over the last six years, including any evaluation completed in the sixth year. Following the discussion with the faculty member, the Department Chair will discuss the overall summary of those performance evaluations with the Dean. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
    A faculty member who has received two or more unsatisfactory ratings in teaching (or, for a librarian, two or more unsatisfactory ratings in professional competence) over that six-year period will be deemed to have received an unsatisfactory rating for post-tenure review. Otherwise, the faculty member will receive a rating of “satisfactory.” Formal written notice from the Department Chair to the faculty member, Dean and Post-Tenure Review Committee of an unsatisfactory rating and need to develop a remediation plan will take place by March 15 of each academic year. 
  • Application for Superior Rating
    A faculty member at the rank of Professor or Librarian IV is eligible to apply for a superior rating in the fall of the sixth year following a successful extra-departmental review (promotion to professor, or a superior rating on a post-tenure review), provided the faculty member has not received two or more ratings of unsatisfactory in teaching (or professional competence) since the last extra-departmental review. The “superior rating” is awarded to candidates who continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the standards of the Faculty/Administration Manual.
    In the event that a candidate who is eligible for and has applied for a superior rating fails to receive that rating at a level of review, a rating of satisfactory will be assigned at that level of review.

Deferments

  • Faculty members may petition the Post-Tenure Review Committee for the postponement of their post-tenure reviews based on extenuating personal circumstances or valid medical reasons which must be documented in the petition. Petitions must be endorsed by the faculty member's Chair and Dean. Postponements will be approved only under extraordinary circumstances and will not normally extend more than one academic year. Decisions by the Post-Tenure Review Committee regarding deferments shall be communicated in writing. Decisions by the Committee may be appealed to the Provost within one (1) week of the candidate's notification. The Provost's decision shall be final. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
  • A faculty member who announces a decision to retire within three years of the faculty member’s scheduled time for post-tenure review (by submission of a letter to the Dean of the faculty member’s school and the Provost) may choose not to undergo that review. However, if a faculty member postpones the announced time of retirement for more than one year, the faculty member will be evaluated in the year of that postponement. All letters indicating the faculty member’s desire for a deferment of posttenure review due to an announced retirement must be copied to the Post-Tenure Review Committee. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
  • A faculty member scheduled for post-tenure review in a given year will not have to undergo that review if the faculty member petitions for promotion that same year. (Rev. Aug. 2018)
  • Administrators who previously held 12-month faculty appointments, such as Deans, and are rejoining the ranks of the faculty will undergo post-tenure review within three years of their return to faculty status.
  • If a faculty member takes a sabbatical leave or a leave of absence in the same academic year the faculty member is scheduled for post-tenure review, the post-tenure review will take place during the following academic year, unless the faculty member decides to undergo the review at the originally scheduled time. (Rev. Aug. 2018) (Rev. Aug. 2017)

Preparation and Submission of the Faculty Member's Packet in Application for Superior Rating

  • A faculty member who wishes to be considered for a superior rating shall submit to the faculty member’s Department Chair by the announced deadline a packet of material that must include: (Rev. Aug. 2018)
    1. Curriculum vitae.
    2. Statement from the candidate on teaching, research and service addressing accomplishments since the last review and future plans and goals.
    3. Annual performance evaluations by the Department Chair during the period under review. In the event that a Department Chair is being evaluated, the Dean's annual evaluations of the Chair will be included instead.
    4. Candidates seeking a superior rating must furnish two
      letters from intra‐ and/or extra‐ departmental peers concerning aspects of the candidate’s teaching (or, for librarians, professional competency). The evaluation of teaching performance will include the peer review of class materials and/or peer observation of classroom performance by two (2) senior faculty colleagues.
    5. Computer-generated student teaching evaluations (summary pages with numbers) for all evaluated courses taught by the candidate during the period under review.
    6. Candidates seeking a superior rating must also furnish clear evidence that they continue to perform at the level expected for the promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, in accordance with the criteria of the Faculty/Administration Manual, as indicated in Sect VI.A.4.c. for instructional faculty and VI.C.4.d for library faculty. Evidence is to be compiled for the intervening period between promotion evaluation and/or post-tenure reviews.
  • A late packet will not be considered for a superior rating except in extraordinary circumstances. A letter must accompany the packet to explain these circumstances. (Rev. Apr. 2009, Rev. Dec. 2011)

Specific Criteria for a Superior Rating

Awarding of a superior rating to a faculty member who has previously achieved the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, requires clear evidence that the candidate has continued to perform at the level expected for that earlier promotion, in accordance with the criteria set forth for such promotions in the Faculty/Administration Manual, as indicated in Section VI.A.4.c for instructional faculty and VI.C.4.d for library faculty.

The specific review process used for the assignment of a superior rating at this career level is consistent with the recognition that, having once satisfied the standard for promotion to the rank of Professor, or Librarian IV, expectations for sustaining this level of achievement might be met in a variety of ways. While sustaining an active and appropriate research or creative record is still a critical element in any successful application for a superior rating, it may be recognized that, while specific departmental policies governing publication standards may exceed the College-wide norm for tenure and for promotion (preamble of Sect. VI.A.4), application of such higher standards may not always be appropriate to require for a superior rating, unless a departmental policy explicitly states that they are.
Faculty at the rank of Professor or Librarian IV are occasionally called upon to fulfill time-consuming leadership roles in professional service, sometimes for lengthy periods, either within the College or in their larger professional communities, or to take on extraordinary instructional or professional obligations. Evaluators at the various levels of post-tenure review should be mindful of those realities in the cycle of academic careers. (Ins. Aug. 2018)

Recommendations by the Department Chair or Panel and the Dean

Post-tenure review is normally conducted by the Department Chair. A departmental post-tenure review panel will be convened only in the case of a Department Chair seeking a superior post-tenure rating. When the Department Chair is to undergo post-tenure review and is seeking a superior rating, the most senior tenured member of the department (other than the Chair) will convene, and normally chair, a departmental posttenure review panel consisting of three tenured faculty members (including the panel chair). Panel members will normally be drawn from the home department according to seniority. When necessary to complete the panel, additions will be drawn, following the same criteria, from departments with related areas of study. The panel may not include department chairs from external departments. No tenured faculty member concurrently subject to post-tenure review may serve on this panel. The panel will exercise the same responsibility with respect to the Department Chair’s candidacy that the Chair would normally exercise in cases of faculty seeking a superior post-tenure rating. This departmental panel will also review all other cases of faculty seeking a superior post-tenure rating at the same time as the Department Chair. The Department Chair or departmental panel will recommend a rating for each such candidate’s performance. The Department Chair will be responsible for all cases of candidates seeking a satisfactory post-tenure rating, except the Chair’s own case, which will be conducted by the Dean, acting in the capacity of both the Chair and the Dean in such cases. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

In the case of a candidate requesting a superior rating, the Department Chair (or the departmental panel) shall forward to the candidate’s Dean by the announced deadline the candidate’s packet with a letter justifying the Chair’s (or panel’s) concurrence or failure to concur with the candidate’s self-evaluation. At this time a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate. Should the rating of the Chair (or departmental panel) be satisfactory rather than superior, the candidate may forward a letter of rebuttal to the Candidate’s Dean and Department Chair no later than five (5) days before the first day of the beginning of the Spring Semester. The Deans will review packets and forward written recommendations to the Office of the Provost. (Rev. Aug. 2018)

In the case of a candidate being considered for a satisfactory rating, the Department Chair shall meet with the Dean to discuss a summary of the candidate’s annual performance evaluations. In addition, the Chair or panel will forward to the candidate’s Dean a written statement that the candidate meets the criteria for a satisfactory rating or a brief summary of the ratings received on annual performance evaluations in the area of teaching and a statement that the candidate receives an unsatisfactory rating. At this time a copy of the letter shall be forwarded to the candidate, the Provost, and the Post-Tenure Review Committee. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018)

Recommendations to the President on Superior Ratings

  • The Post-Tenure Review Committee shall review and forward its recommendations on applications for superior ratings to the Provost by the announced deadline, typically at the end of February. The Provost may make a recommendation and shall forward all recommendations to the President by the announced deadline. (Rev. Apr. 2009)
  • The President shall make a final determination on superior ratings within two (2) weeks after the President receives recommendations from all of the following: the Department Chair (or the departmental panel chair), the appropriate Dean, the Post-Tenure Review Committee, and the Provost. All such recommendations shall be submitted to the President no later than March 1 of each year.40 In addition to these recommendations, the President shall also have access to, and may consider, other materials used by any or all of the foregoing during the course of their respective evaluations. Once a final decision is made by the President, and within the two (2) weeks after the last recommendation is received by the President, the President shall inform the candidate, the Provost, the Dean, and the Department Chair (or departmental panel chair), in writing, of that decision. (Rev. Apr. 2009; Aug. 2018)
  • Merit Increase for Superior Rating
    Whenever the President assigns a rating of superior, such a rating must be accompanied by a permanent merit increase in pay effective the academic year following the year of evaluation.

Remediation Plan for Unsatisfactory Rating

Whenever a candidate receives a rating of unsatisfactory under post-tenure review, the case will be remanded to the existing departmental post-tenure review panel, or a new one convened for the purpose (in the latter case, including the Department Chair and two (2) other tenured departmental faculty members), to devise a remediation plan in consultation with the candidate. This plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the college-wide Post-Tenure Review Committee for approval within twenty (20) working days of the determination of an unsatisfactory rating. The Post-Tenure Review Committee must approve or, in consultation with the departmental panel, modify the plan within fifteen working days.

A component of this plan must involve full annual performance evaluations of the faculty member that address the remediation plan directly. As part of the annual performance evaluation, both the Department Chair and the Dean must describe in writing the faculty member’s progress in meeting the goals of the remediation plan.

  • Ratification of remediation plan
    Ultimate ratification of satisfactory completion of a remediation plan rests with the college-wide Post-Tenure Review Committee, as constituted at the time of the deadline originally assigned for completion of remediation, to the extent possible. In the event that the Committee concludes that the candidate has failed to complete the remediation plan to its satisfaction, the Committee will notify the candidate, the Department Chair or panel, the Provost, and the Dean of the candidate’s school that the Committee has concluded that proceeding for revocation of the candidate’s tenure ought to be instituted, in accordance with the guidelines of the Faculty/Administration Manual.

Appeals

  • Appeal of decision on completion or remediation plan
    A candidate wishing to appeal a decision of the Post-Tenure Review Committee that the candidate has failed to complete the remediation plan to its satisfaction must submit a written appeal to the Faculty Hearing Committee within ten (10) days of notification of this decision. The decision may only be appealed when the faculty member alleges the Committee’s decision was based upon:
    1. Discrimination, defined as differential treatment based
      upon gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, race, color, religion, national origin, veterans’ status, genetic information, or disability; or
    2. Violation of academic freedom as it relates to freedom of expression; or
    3.  Violation of due process as provided in the College’s published rules, regulations, policies and procedures. (Rev. Aug. 2017)
  • Appealing a Satisfactory Rating
    A candidate who receives a satisfactory rating after having sought a superior rating and who alleges that the rating was based upon discrimination, violation of academic freedom or violation of due process may follow the appeals procedure outlined in Art. X.I.
  • If the candidate feels that the satisfactory rating received is
    incorrect for reasons other than those listed in the preceding paragraph, a formal appeal is not allowed. However, the faculty member remains eligible to undergo review for a superior rating in the subsequent year or the following year, as outlined above, without waiting six years for the next scheduled review. (Rev. Aug. 2014, Aug. 2016, Aug. 2017, Aug. 2018)

40 Deadlines for earlier stages of the review process typically are prior to March 1 and are announced by Academic Affairs each year.  

Related Policies, Documents or Forms

7.3.8 Post Tenure Review (FAM VI.H) PDF

Revision Log

Web Publication Date: 1/21/2026