PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

OF TENURED FACULTY

Adopted May, 1998

Amended February 2, 2000

Amended March 13, 2000

PREAMBLE

The University of Texas at Arlington recognizes the time‑honored practice of tenure for university faculty as an important protection of free inquiry, open intellectual and scientific debate, unfettered criticism of the accepted body of knowledge, and shared faculty governance of the institution. Academic institutions have a special need for practices that protect freedom of

expression, because the core of the academic enterprise involves a continual reexamination of ideas. Academic disciplines thrive and grow through critical analysis of conventions and theories. The best way to guarantee the integrity of an academic institution is to insure that the faculty are free honestly to contribute to the governance of that institution.

Tenure is essential, not merely for protection of individual faculty members, but also as an assurance to society that the pursuit of truth and knowledge commands our first priority. Without freedom to question, there can be no freedom to learn. The process of reviewing faculty performance should at all times enhance, encourage and protect these principles.

I. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL FACULTY

A. Each department (or equivalent unit) shall conduct an annual review of all its faculty. Written criteria for annual reviews shall be established by the faculty in each department (or equivalent unit), subject to the approval of the Dean, Provost and President, and be made available to each faculty member. The criteria shall establish a standard for minimum satisfactory annual performance by the faculty of the department (or equivalent unit) in the areas of teaching, research, and service. A faculty member shall submit an annual report, a summary of a student survey of teaching performance for each course taught during the year, and any additional materials he or she deems appropriate. The annual report should contain evidence of all professional activity, for example, teaching, advising, student research supervision, research, publication, creative activities, service and/or any other relevant activity.

B. Each department (or equivalent) shall make a determination as to whether the faculty member is performing at or above a minimum satisfactory level, relative to the established criteria of the department (or equivalent unit). Each faculty member will be informed in writing by his or her department chair (or equivalent) of the result of this annual review which will include an

assessment of the faculty member's strengths and weaknesses.

II. PERIODIC CUMULATIVE EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY

Every sixth year, tenured faculty will undergo a cumulative evaluation. The faculty member subject to evaluation shall be given at least six months prior notification of the intended evaluation by the department chair (or equivalent).

A. Review Materials

At the time of the evaluation, a faculty member will submit a file which contains a resume and the materials used to conduct the annual reviews for the six‑year period under evaluation. The faculty member may submit any additional materials he or she deems appropriate. The faculty member retains the right to review and copy all materials in his or her file at any time during the

evaluation process.

B. The Review Process

This section describes the steps in the review process. Faculty members in Colleges, Schools, and Centers with departments should proceed to sub-section 1. Faculty members in Schools and Centers without departments should proceed to sub-section 2. Faculty members with joint appointment should proceed to sub-section 3. Faculty members who hold administrative appointments should proceed to sub-section 4.

1. Faculty members in Colleges and Schools or Centers with departments

(a). The sixth year cumulative evaluation shall be conducted by the department chair (or equivalent). The evaluation, based on all submitted materials, shall determine if the performance of the faculty member, taken as a whole across the three performance areas (teaching, research, and service), is at or above a minimum satisfactory level relative to established departmental (or unit) criteria. The faculty member will be informed in writing of the result of this evaluation. A copy of the chair's (or equivalent) written report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member in the department (or equivalent unit).

(b). Where the result of the evaluation indicates performance below a minimum satisfactory level, the faculty member may request an additional evaluation from a department (or equivalent unit) evaluation committee or college evaluation committee.

(1). The department (or equivalent unit) evaluation committee shall be a committee of at least five tenured members elected annually by the voting tenured faculty of the department (or unit). Departments without sufficient eligible tenured faculty shall select tenured faculty from another department from within the college. Schools and Centers without sufficient eligible tenured faculty shall select tenured faculty members from another School or Center. The faculty member being evaluated will be provided an opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee during the evaluation process.

(2). The college evaluation committee shall be elected annually by all the voting tenured faculty of the college, consist of at least five members, only one of which may be from the unit of the faculty member being evaluated. During the evaluation process, the faculty member will be given the opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee. The faculty member and the dean will be given a copy of the report of the review committee evaluation. A copy of the written report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member in the department (or equivalent unit).

(c). The materials submitted by the faculty member, the report of the department chair (or equivalent), and, if applicable, reports from the evaluation committees shall be forwarded to the dean for evaluation. The dean shall evaluate the submitted material to determine if the faculty member's performance, taken as a whole across the three performance areas (teaching, research and service), is at or above the minimum satisfactory level. The faculty member will be informed in writing of the result of the dean's evaluation. A copy of the dean's report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member in the department (or equivalent unit).

(d). If the dean determines the faculty member's performance to have been below a minimum satisfactory level, the faculty member may request an additional evaluation from the college evaluation committee, unless the faculty member has already been evaluated by the college evaluation committee. During the evaluation process, the faculty member will be given the opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee. The faculty member and the dean will be given a copy of the evaluation committee's report. A copy of the evaluation committee's report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member in the department (or equivalent unit).

(e). Decisions by the dean or the college evaluation committee which reverse departmental decisions must be for good reason. The dean and the college evaluation committee shall communicate the reasons for the reversal to the chief academic officer and the faculty member via a written memorandum.

(f). The results of the sixth‑year evaluation will be communicated by the dean of the faculty member's unit to the faculty member, the department chair, the chief academic officer and to the President for review and appropriate action and include the following: the materials submitted by the faculty member, the report of the department chair (or equivalent), the report of the dean, and, if applicable, reports from department (or equivalent) and college evaluation committees. Based on this evaluation, the following actions may occur:

(1). A faculty member found to be performing above a minimum satisfactory level may be recommended for merit raises, nominated for awards, or other forms of recognition.

(2). For faculty members whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional support, the evaluation may be used to provide such support (e.g. teaching effectiveness support, mentoring in research, counseling guidance on service expectations).

(3). For individuals found to be performing unsatisfactorily, review to determine if good cause exists for termination under the current Regents' Rules and Regulations may be considered. All proceedings for termination of tenured faculty on the basis of periodic performance evaluation shall be only for incompetence, neglect of duty or other good cause shown and must be conducted in accordance with the due process procedures of the Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6, including an opportunity for referral of the matter to alternative dispute resolution. Such proceedings must also include a list of specified charges by the chief administrative officer and an opportunity for a hearing before a faculty tribunal. In all such cases, the burden of proof shall be on the institution, and the rights of a faculty member to due process and academic freedom shall be protected.

(g). The chief academic officer shall inform the faculty member of the result of the review.

2. Faculty members in Schools or Centers without departments.

(a). The sixth year cumulative evaluation shall be conducted by the dean or director. The dean or director shall evaluate the submitted material to determine if the faculty member's performance, taken as a whole across the three performance areas (teaching, research and service), is at or above the minimum satisfactory level. The faculty member will be informed in writing of the result of the evaluation. A copy of the report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member in the department (or equivalent unit).

(b). If the dean or director determines the faculty member's performance to have been below a minimum satisfactory level, the faculty member may request an additional evaluation from the school’s/center evaluation committee. During the evaluation process, the faculty member will be given the opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee. The faculty member and the dean will be given a copy of the evaluation committee's report. A copy of the evaluation committee's report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member.

(1). The evaluation committee shall be elected annually by all the voting tenured faculty of the unit, consist of at least five members. During the evaluation process, the faculty member will be given the opportunity to meet with the evaluation committee. The faculty member and the dean or director will be given a copy of the report of the review committee evaluation. A copy of the written report will be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member.

(c). The results of the sixth‑year evaluation will be communicated by the dean or director of the faculty member's unit to the chief academic officer and to the President for review and appropriate action and include the following: the materials submitted by the faculty member, the report of the dean or director, and, if applicable, reports from the evaluation committee. Based on this evaluation, the following actions may occur:

(1). A faculty member found to be performing above a minimum satisfactory level may be recommended for merit raises, nominated for awards, or other forms of recognition.

(d). The chief academic officer shall inform the faculty member of the result of the review.

3. Faculty with joint appointments

Faculty members with appointments in two or more academic units and where the time is equally shared among those units shall utilize the procedures in this section. Faculty members with joint appointments in two more academic units and where the time in not equally shared shall follow the procedures for the academic unit in which he or she spends the most time (see sub-sections 1 and 2 of this section). The nature of the joint appointment shall be determined by reference to the appointment letter for the year immediately prior to the six-year review.

(a). Joint appointments within the same College, School, or Center

Faculty members who have joint appointments within the same College, School, or Center shall follow the procedures detailed in II.B.2. When evaluating the faculty member, the dean or director shall consider all the materials submitted by the faculty member and shall consult the department chairs (if applicable) for the units in which the faculty member holds an appointment.

(b). Joint appointments across Colleges, Schools, or Centers

Faculty members who have joint appointments across Colleges, School, or Centers shall elect the academic unit in which they will to begin their sixth-year review. The review shall follow the same procedures detailed in II.B.2. The dean or director of that academic unit shall consider all the materials submitted by the faculty member and shall consult with the department chair, dean, or director of the academic units in which the faculty member holds appointments.

4. Faculty members who hold administrative appointments

The sixth‑year cumulative evaluation of tenured faculty members who are Department Chairs, Assistant Deans, Associate Deans, Deans, Vice Presidents, Vice Provosts, Provost or President will be conducted by a department evaluation committee (or equivalent). The department evaluation committee (or equivalent) shall be composed of at least five tenured members elected by the voting tenured faculty of the department (or equivalent unit) and may be the same committee as specified in II(B)(2) (or II(B)(3)) if timing of the chair's sixth‑year cumulative evaluation coincides with that of other department faculty. Departments without sufficient eligible tenured faculty shall select tenured faculty from another department from within the college (or equivalent unit). The evaluation based on all submitted materials, shall determine whether the performance of the administrator as a faculty member, taken as a whole across the three performance areas (teaching, research and service), is at or above a minimum satisfactory level relative to established department (or unit) criteria. Appropriate consideration should be given to the administrator's administrative service, particularly regarding its impact on the level of research activity, number of courses taught and extent of involvement in other service activities. The administrator will be informed in writing of the result of this evaluation. A copy of the written report will be placed in the administrator's personnel file in the department (or equivalent unit).

III. DEFERMENT OF SIXTH‑YEAR EVALUATION

The sixth‑year evaluation may not be waived for any tenured faculty member but may be deferred in rare circumstances when the review period will coincide with approved leave, comprehensive review for promotion or appointment to an endowed position. A faculty member may choose to defer the sixth‑year review for a period of one year from the regularly scheduled

review. After the completion of the deferred review, the faculty member’s next periodic cumulative evaluation will occur in six years. The requirement of periodic review does not imply that individuals with unsatisfactory annual evaluations may not be subject to further review and/or appropriate administrative action.

The success of the University's periodic performance evaluation of tenured faculty policy will depend on the quality of policy implementation and the University's commitment to assist and support faculty development. In this context, the Provost shall have oversight responsibility for policy implementation and faculty development.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

The periodic evaluation of tenured faculty will be phased in over six years beginning with the 1998‑99 academic year. A faculty member will be evaluated on a six‑year cycle determined by the academic year of his or her last comprehensive review.

V. NOTIFICATION

A. The chief academic officer shall send a written notification to all tenure track and tenured faculty members detailing the specifics of this policy once it is approved by the Board of Regents.

B. The department chair (or equivalent) shall inform, via the letter of offer, all new tenure‑track and tenure hires to the faculty of the specifics of this policy.

VI. OVERSIGHT

A. At the final Faculty Senate meeting of each academic year, the chief academic officer shall provide a report summarizing the number of faculty evaluated under this policy and the result of those evaluations.

B. This policy will be reviewed every two years after initial implementation by UTA's chief academic officer in consultation with the Faculty Senate's Executive Committee. A report summarizing the review will be presented to the Faculty Senate.

VII. INTENT

Nothing in this document or the application of institutional evaluation policies shall be interpreted or applied to infringe on the tenure system, academic freedom, due process or other protected rights, nor to establish new term‑tenure systems or to require faculty to reestablish their credentials for tenure.