INTRODUCTION

The performance review process for tenured faculty (post-tenure) at North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University (NCA&TSU) is a comprehensive, formal evaluation of cumulative faculty performance. Performance review encompasses and acknowledges the importance and significance of annual performance reviews, while providing for comprehensive, cumulative reviews. Performance review provides a new opportunity to identify sustained exemplary performance of faculty that may not be recognized over a period of one year. Performance review will not be used to suggest ways that competent faculty may merely improve their satisfactory performance; annual performance reviews serve this function.

The Performance Review Process outlined herein is part of NCA&TSU’s, as well as the University of North Carolina System’s effort, to ensure faculty development and to promote faculty vitality. This policy will be reviewed every five years.

PURPOSE

Performance review is intended to strengthen the system of tenure and to protect academic freedom, while assuring continuous improvement in the quality of the faculty as they carry out the institutional mission of teaching, research, creative work and service in accordance with the mission of the University. The objectives of a performance review are to identify and reward exemplary faculty performance, and to identify and correct deficient faculty performance. Performance review is also a means of enhancing performance of tenured faculty by stressing formative as well as summative evaluation. These evaluations should lead to effective and useful feedback, appropriate intervention, and timely and positive assistance to ensure that every tenured faculty member continues to experience professional development and accomplishments during the faculty member’s career.

At its meeting on May 16, 1997, the Board of Governors adopted the following recommendation in the report of the University of North Carolina Committee to Study Post-Tenure Review. The review of the performance of tenured faculty in the University shall be "to support and encourage excellence among tenured faculty by:

• recognizing and rewarding exemplary faculty performance;

• providing for a clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance of faculty found deficient; and

• for those whose performance remains deficient, providing for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may, in the most serious cases, include recommendation for discharge."

A fundamental purpose supporting post-tenure review is to enable the faculty member to engage in a peer-coordinated performance evaluation to assess level of performance, productivity, and/or career development over a longer term than is usually provided by an annual review. North Carolina A&T State University’s performance review policies and procedures, in concert with its global mission, will help to continually ensure a distinguished faculty in all degree programs at the baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral levels.

Expectations for Performance

Tenured and tenure-track faculty within each department will develop a narrative statement of the department’s expectations for satisfactory performance by tenured faculty. Such statements shall be consistent with the Faculty Handbook, and shall reflect the standards of excellence and appropriate balance of teaching, research or other creative activity, and service as prevails in the discipline and the department. In addition, these statements shall be consistent with standards used for annual performance evaluations. The University shall provide reasonable resources needed by the faculty to achieve the required level and quality of performance. These statements shall be as specific as possible without unduly restricting the recognition of diverse valuable contributions of individual faculty members. These statements, once approved by the departmental faculty, shall be reviewed by a school/college committee, with input from the Dean, to assure some uniformity of standards across departments and to assure that faculty performance expectations are consistent with the established mission and do not fall below those expectations of the School/College. The statement of expectations, approved by both the departmental faculty and the Dean, will be the basis for evaluating a tenured faculty member’s performance. The statement of expectations will be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

As the mission of the Department, School/College, or University changes, or the standards of excellence and appropriate balance of teaching, research or other creative activity, and service as prevails in the discipline and the Department change, the narrative statement of the Department’s expectations may also change. The revised statement of expectations, approved by the departmental faculty and the Dean, will be the basis for evaluating a tenured faculty member’s performance. The revised statement of expectations will be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

Schedule of Evaluation

Performance review evaluations for tenured faculty members will begin five years after the most recent promotion or award of tenure, and will continue at five-year intervals unless interrupted by an additional review for promotion or other personnel action. An application for promotion, successful or unsuccessful, after a faculty member receives tenure satisfies the requirements for the faculty member’s Performance Review of Tenured Faculty. One outcome of the promotion review could be a requirement that the faculty member prepare a Performance Development Plan as described below.

A faculty member who is on leave during the prescribed year of review will ordinarily be reviewed the year after returning. A faculty member may request postponement of a scheduled performance review for extenuating circumstances, such as health problems. The request must be in writing, and be approved by the faculty member’s Department Chairperson and the Dean.

To initiate the first round of performance reviews, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will identify the population of all tenured faculty, and indicate the academic year in which they received tenure or their most recent promotion, if later. Those faculty who were tenured or promoted before the inauguration of the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty will undergo a performance review based on length of time after their most recent promotion or award of tenure as specified in Appendix 1. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will publish and distribute to the tenured faculty, Department Chairpersons, and Deans the names of faculty members to be reviewed, along with the years in which these reviews are to take place.

The fifth year will be used to evaluate those who have become eligible for post-tenure review since the inauguration of the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty Policy. Five years after the year of the initial review, the cycles will repeat with new names added in the appropriate year, as they become eligible for review.

Selection of Performance Review Committee

Tenured faculty in all departments will constitute the pool eligible to serve as members of a Performance Review Committee (PRC). Administrative tenured faculty are ineligible to serve on a PRC. The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs shall verify annually the eligibility of all committee members and maintain records of the members of the University-wide PRCs. From this pool, three faculty members will be selected to serve on the PRC for a tenured faculty member who has been identified for a performance review. Two of the three committee members will be selected by the reviewee, and one member will be selected by the tenured faculty from the reviewee’s department. When there are two or fewer tenured faculty in the Department, the senior faculty in the Department shall select the one committee member. The committee membership may include tenured faculty persons from other departments.

The PRC will participate in a scheduled training session relative to peer review. Committee members will select, from among themselves, a chairperson. The committee chairperson is responsible for the implementation and documentation of this performance review. The findings and recommendations of the PRC should be documented to ensure results consistent with approved performance expectations.

The Review Portfolio

The tenured faculty member selected for review shall prepare a review portfolio within 60 days of notification of review. The faculty member has the right and obligation to provide all the documents, materials, and statements relevant and necessary for review, and all materials submitted shall be included in the portfolio. The documentation shall include a current curriculum vita and evidence of teaching, research, creative work, professional growth and University and public service.

Other materials, at the discretion of the faculty member, may include a maximum of three letters of support from NCA&TSU colleagues attesting to the faculty member’s performance, and a maximum of three additional letters from persons external to the university who can attest to the quality and validity of the reviewee’s professional accomplishments and record of service. The Department Chairperson may add to the portfolio any further materials deemed relevant, in every case providing the faculty member with a copy of each item added. The faculty member has the right to review and respond in writing to any materials added by the Department Chairperson, with the written response included in the portfolio. In addition, the faculty member shall have the right to add any materials, including statements and additional documents, at any time during the review process.

The portfolio shall be submitted in one three-ring notebook binder with a table of contents, and tabbed sections for ease in locating sections and materials. The faculty member’s name should appear on the spine and the front of the notebook. The faculty member has final determination regarding the contents of the review portfolio, with the exception of the materials provided by the Department Chairperson.

Submission and Evaluation of Portfolio

The Department Chairperson shall notify the faculty member in writing that a performance review will be conducted by the PRC. The reviewee will designate two faculty members to serve on the PRC and shall submit the review portfolio to the Department Chairperson within 60 days of this written notification. Within seven days of receiving the review portfolio, the Department Chairperson must submit the portfolio to the PRC.

The performance review will occur within 60 days after the faculty member submits the portfolio.

The Review Process

The performance review focuses on the faculty member’s teaching, research, creative work, and service, as related to the stated performance expectations developed by the Department. Additionally, the review is to provide informed and candid feedback to the faculty member concerning the quality of his/her contributions, weaknesses or deficiencies in the portfolio, and recommendations for improvement.

The performance review will result in one of three possible outcomes:

(1) Exemplary - the faculty member’s performance is substantially above the expectations for faculty performance as identified by the Department. The PRC shall state in writing their findings, and forward a copy to the faculty member, Department Chairperson, Dean and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for their information. A letter of commendation, written by the Department Chairperson, will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file housed in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. In cases where a faculty member’s performance is deemed exemplary, the faculty member’s performance will be recognized or rewarded in one or more of the following ways:

• the faculty member will be considered for a professional development grant, i.e., a monetary award, which may be used for such things as travel to professional meetings, professional association memberships, computer hardware/software, office supplies, etc.;

• the faculty member may be recommended for priority consideration for a one-semester three-hour teaching load reduction as approved by the Department Chairperson and Dean;

• the faculty member will be recommended by the Department Chairperson for consideration by the School/College Awards Committee/University Awards Committee, including the UNC Board of Governor’s Excellence in Teaching Award.

(2) Satisfactory - the faculty member’s performance meets the expectations for faculty performance as identified by the Department. Some strengths and/or deficiencies may have been found in the faculty member’s performance. If strengths and/or deficiencies are identified, the PRC shall state them in writing and provide a copy to the faculty member and the Department Chairperson.

(3) Deficient - the faculty member does not meet the criteria for being judged satisfactory as measured against expectations for faculty performance identified by the Department. The PRC shall state in writing the specific deficiencies identified and provide a copy to the faculty member and the Department Chairperson. These findings will require a Performance Development Plan.

When the review outcome is satisfactory or deficient, the Department Chairperson will provide feedback to the faculty member within seven days. The Department Chairperson may agree with the findings and forward these findings to the Dean for review. If the Department Chairperson disagrees with the PRC’s findings, he/she notifies the faculty member and the PRC in writing within seven days. The faculty member may also respond in writing, within seven days, to the Department Chairperson’s assessment. The Department Chairperson then forwards the PRC report, the reasons for dissenting with the PRC report, and the faculty member’s response, if any, to the Dean for review. After review and consultation, the Dean, within 14 days, notifies the faculty member, the PRC Chairperson, Department Chairperson and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in writing of the outcome of the review process. (See Appeal Process below.)

Performance Development Plan

If the review process determines that the faculty member’s performance is deficient, the faculty member shall develop the Performance Development Plan (PDP) in consultation with the Department Chairperson and the PRC Chairperson. The PDP should be developed within 30 days of written notification to the faculty member, and then submitted to the Dean of the School/College. If the PDP is accepted by the Dean, the Department Chairperson is so informed, and a copy is forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. If the PDP is not accepted by the Dean, the Department Chairperson and the faculty member have 10 days to modify and resubmit the plan to the Dean. The PDP should be completed within a three-year period.

Although each PDP is tailored to individual circumstances, the PDP will:

• identify specific strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member’s performance

• define specific goals or outcomes necessary to remedy the deficiencies

• outline the activities to be undertaken to achieve the necessary outcomes

• set appropriate time lines for accomplishing the activities and achieving intermediate and ultimate outcomes

• indicate appropriate criteria by which the faculty member could monitor progress

• identify institutional resources to support the PDP.

Failure to reach an agreement on a PDP will necessitate mediation by the Dean.

Assessment

The faculty member and Department Chairperson shall meet semiannually to review the faculty member’s progress toward remedying the identified deficiencies. A progress report will be forwarded to the Dean at the end of the academic year.

When the objectives of the PDP have been met, or in any case no later than three years after the start of the PDP, the Department Chairperson shall make a final report to the faculty member and Dean. If the report is accepted by the Dean, the Department Chairperson is so informed, and a copy is forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The faculty member is then notified in writing by the Dean that he/she has appropriately addressed the deficiencies. If the PDP is not accepted by the Dean, the Department Chairperson has ten days to modify and resubmit the PDP to the Dean.

If, after consulting with the PRC, the Department Chairperson and the Dean agree that the faculty member has failed to achieve the goals of the PDP and that the deficiencies in completion of the PDP constitute good cause for the University to take action, there are two options available. When the faculty member’s teaching performance is judged to be satisfactory or better, the University’s actions may include, among other things, the assignment of additional teaching responsibility. When the faculty member’s teaching performance is judged to be less than satisfactory, there is cause for discharge, suspension from employment or a reduction in rank. These penalties may be imposed only in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Appendix B, Section 4 - Faculty Handbook and with Chapter VI of The Code of the University of North Carolina.

Appeal

If the faculty member believes the performance review process and resulting sanctions have been unjustly or arbitrarily applied, within five days after receiving a written notice of the penalty, he/she may in writing request a private conference with the Dean to discuss the reasons for the penalty. This request shall be granted, and the conference held forthwith, within five days after receipt of the request, if possible.

Within five days after the conference, the Dean shall give the faculty member a simple, unelaborated, written statement of whether the original decision remains in effect.

Within five days after receiving notice that the original decision remains in effect, the faculty member may in writing request a conference with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. This request shall be granted, and the conference held forthwith, within five days after receipt of the request, if possible.

Within ten days of this conference, the Vice Chancellor shall send a written evaluation of the matter to the faculty member, the Dean and the Department Chairperson. The evaluation may be in the form of an unelaborated concurrence with the decision; an expression of disagreement with the decision, with or without supporting reasons; or a recommendation for reconsidering the decision, with or without suggestions for specific procedures in doing so. Whatever form the evaluation may take, it is merely recommendatory, and is not binding upon the Dean or final as to the faculty member.

Within five days of receiving an evaluation that disagrees with the decision or recommends its reconsideration, the Dean shall give the faculty member and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs a response in writing.

Within five days after receiving notice that the original decision remains in effect, the faculty member may file a grievance under the provisions of Appendix B, Section 4, "Faculty Handbook and with Chapter VI of The Code of the University of North Carolina." If the Faculty Hearing and Reconsideration Committee determines that the faculty member’s contention has been satisfactorily established, it shall so notify the faculty member, the Department Chairperson, the Dean and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs through a written notice that shall also include a recommendation for corrective action by the Dean.

Within five days of receiving such a recommendation, the Dean shall notify the faculty member, Department Chairperson, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chairperson of the Faculty Hearing Committee concerning what modification, if any, he/she will make with respect to the original decision to discharge, suspend from employment or diminish in rank.

If the Dean fails to modify the original decision, the Faculty Hearing and Reconsideration Committee shall submit a report to the Chancellor containing the Committee’s findings of fact and recommendation(s), and what it considers to be appropriate action by the Chancellor to resolve this matter.