Relationship Between Tenured
Faculty Performance Review and Review for Promotion
Tenured Faculty Performance Review will be coordinated with the review of a faculty
member for promotion in the following ways:
A departmental consideration for promotion five years after
a faculty member receives tenure satisfies the requirements for the faculty member's
Tenured Faculty Performance Review. One outcome of the promotion review could be a
requirement that the faculty member prepare a developmental plan as described below.
If a faculty member postpones the application for promotion
five years after receiving tenure, he or she will undergo a Tenured Faculty Performance
Review. The Tenured Faculty Performance Review, in this case, would satisfy the
requirement of a promotion review five years after the award of tenure.
Procedures
Initiating the Review Process
Whenever a Tenured Faculty Performance Review is initiated, the Chair shall first
consult with the faculty member and then shall establish a schedule for the conduct of the
review by the Review Committee (see definition below). Ordinarily, a faculty member should
be given at least four months’ notice that one is to be reviewed.
Review File
To initiate the review process, the Department Chair, in cooperation with the faculty
member, shall construct a Tenured Faculty Performance Review file containing only: (a) copies of the faculty
member’s last five annual review letters from the Department Chair; (b) a current
curriculum vitae; and (c) an optional statement describing his or her professional
accomplishments in teaching, research and service. If necessary for clarification, the
Chair or Review Committee may request further information.
The Review Committee
The Department Review Committee or a special committee elected by the tenured members
of the department, shall conduct the review of the faculty member's performance. The
Committee shall be elected according to the department, college and University procedures.
The Review Committee shall review the file and may meet with the Chair and the faculty
member, either together or separately. The Committee may consult other sources of
information not included in the file, if deemed appropriate, with the approval of the
Chair. In accordance with the schedule for the review established by the Chair, the Review
Committee shall make a written assessment of the faculty member’s performance,
including, where appropriate, recommendations to the Chair intended to enhance the faculty
member's contributions to the unit and the University. The Review Committee Report is
advisory to the Chair. The Report shall include an assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of the faculty member's performance. This written assessment shall conclude
with one of the following findings:
"Seriously Deficient" The faculty member
has substantial and chronic performance deficiencies. The Review Committee shall state and
describe the performance deficiencies in its Report. The Committee shall forward its
findings to the Chairperson.
"Satisfactory" The faculty member has no
substantial and chronic performance deficiencies.
The standards for determining "seriously
deficient" performance shall be determined by the faculty in each
unit, and, when approved by the appropriate Chair and Dean, and by the Provost, shall
become part of its Tenured Faculty Performance Review procedures.
The Chair shall provide the faculty member being reviewed a copy of both the Review
Committee report and the Chair's recommendation. The faculty member will be provided an
opportunity to respond in writing. The report and any response from the faculty member
shall be made a part of the faculty member's permanent personnel record.
Review by Chair and Dean
Review by the Chair
The Review Committee submits its written evaluation to the Chair. The Chair may accept
or reject the recommendation of the Review Committee. The Chair may reject the Review
Committee’s recommendation only with compelling evidence,
communicated in writing to the faculty member, the Dean and the department Review
Committee. The Chair's written appraisal shall include a statement on the extent to which
the Chair accepts or rejects the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee
report and includes the reasons and evidence for such a conclusion. A recommendation for
sanctions to be imposed on the faculty member related to his or her lack of performance
under the terms and expectations of a previously agreed upon performance improvement plan
will be described in the Chair’s written statement.
Review by the Dean
The Chair submits a written appraisal to the Dean. The Dean may accept or reject the
Chair’s recommendation. The Dean may reject the Chair’s recommendation only with compelling evidence. In the
event that the Dean's appraisal of the Tenured Faculty Performance Review outcome
differs from that provided by the Department Review Committee or the Chair, the Dean will
submit the faculty member's review materials to the College Review Committee for an
advisory review, and the Dean’s objections, reasons and evidence will be communicated
in writing. The Dean's response shall be provided to the faculty member, the Chair, and
the Provost.
Faculty Appeals
A faculty member dissatisfied with the results of the Tenured Faculty Performance
Review and the Chair's subsequent appraisal, or the Dean's acceptance, modification or
rejection of it, may pursue any appeal or remedy otherwise available to faculty members
relating to matters that affect their employment status. University regulations are
contained in the Tenure Policies, Procedures, and Regulations
of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Developmental Plan
When the Chair and the Dean agree that the faculty member's performance is
seriously deficient, the Chair will require that the faculty member have a written
developmental plan designed to improve the faculty member's performance in clearly
identified areas over a specified time period. The developmental plan will be prepared
jointly by the Chair and faculty member and will include at a minimum: (a) the
expectations of the Chair as to how the faculty member can remedy the deficiency or
deficiencies in performance or enhance the faculty member's professional accomplishments
and contributions to the unit; (b) specific performance goals and objectives, timetables
for achieving such goals over a two-to-three year period, and the criteria to be used in
measuring progress toward the performance goals; (c) the resources or developmental
support, if any, the Chair is willing and able to provide the faculty member to assist in
implementing the plan; (d) any adjustment in workload, assignments or responsibilities of
the faculty member in order to enhance his or her performance and contribution to the
mission of the unit; and (e) consequences that might follow if deficiencies are not
corrected.
The developmental plan will be reviewed by the Dean, who may make suggestions for
improving the plan. When the plan has received the final approval of the faculty member,
the Chair, and the Dean, it will be implemented by the faculty member.
Monitoring and Re-evaluation of Performance
Progress towards achieving the goals and timetables set out in the development plan
will be reviewed in subsequent annual reviews by the Chair, who will provide detailed
feedback to the faculty member and a copy to the Dean. At the end of the time period
specified in the developmental plan, the Chair, in consultation
with the Department Review Committee, will review the faculty member's
performance and make one of the following recommendations:
The faculty member has improved his or her performance, and
no further action is necessary pending the next regularly scheduled Tenured Faculty
Performance Review;
The faculty member's performance has improved but not at
the expected level. The Chair may require an adjustment in the developmental plan or in
the faculty member's workload in order to improve further the faculty member's
performance; or
The faculty member's performance remains seriously
deficient. The Chairperson may recommend the imposition of appropriate sanctions. Any
decision to recommend imposition of serious sanctions should occur only after the widest
consultation with the tenured faculty in the department; whether this involves a poll or
other mechanism is left up to the department. However, the department is expected to
transmit the outcome of such consultation with the senior faculty to the Dean. The Chair's
recommendation is forwarded to the faculty member and the Dean.
Dean's Review and the Possible Imposition of Sanctions
The Dean reviews the recommended action:
If the Dean agrees with a departmental recommendation that
no further action is necessary, the review process stops pending the next regularly
scheduled Tenured Faculty Performance Review.
If the Dean agrees with a recommendation for a workload
adjustment, the adjustment is implemented and the review stops pending the next regularly
scheduled Tenured Faculty Performance Review.
If the Dean agrees with a departmental recommendation for
the imposition of serious sanctions, the Dean forwards this recommendation to the Provost.
Serious sanctions may be imposed only in accord with Section VI, of the Tenure Policies,
Regulations and Procedures of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (pp.17-19).
Serious sanctions that may be imposed include demotion, salary reduction and, in the most
serious cases, may include a recommendation for discharge. A faculty member retains full
rights to seek a hearing if the decision is made to impose serious sanctions. Neither a
negative review nor an insufficient improvement from a development plan will necessarily
result in the imposition of sanctions; such sanctions may be imposed only upon grounds
specified in Section VI of the Tenure Policies. In the imposition of serious sanctions,
the burden of proof is on the University to prove that the serious deficiencies on the
developmental plan constitute incompetence or neglect of duty.
