Evaluation of faculty members includes written annual reviews and feedback from peers. Evaluations also include a thorough review for assistant professors during the third year of appointment at the University of Georgia and a review every five years following the award of tenure.
1.06-1 Written Annual Evaluation§
1.06-1 Written Annual Evaluation (Effective AY 2023-2024)
Each faculty member at the University of Georgia, regardless of rank or responsibilities, must receive a written annual evaluation of his or her performance. All annual evaluations of faculty performance must be supported by an annual activity report from UGA Elements. Each evaluation must address the components outlined in the following framework. However, evaluators may use their own format and include additional components if they wish. Some units may have unique needs that require an adjustment to some component of the annual evaluation letter. Units should work directly with their dean for approval of any adjustments and to ensure that all faculty members in their units are fully informed. A faculty member may or may not respond to his/her annual evaluation in writing; any such response will become part of the record. An editable copy of the current evaluation framework is posted at the Office of Faculty Affairs website. An editable copy of the updated version is linked here, effective August 1, 2023.
1.06-2 Peer Participation§
Faculty members should participate with their respective department head and dean’s office, as appropriate, in the development or modification of means and instrumentation for faculty evaluation.
- University Council Minutes, March 11, 1980
- Board of Regents Policy Manual, § 22.214.171.124
1.06-3- Pre-tenure Review§
For assistant professors in their third year of appointment at the University of Georgia, the head of the promotion/tenure unit shall appoint a committee to review thoroughly the individual’s achievements and performance in teaching, research and other creative activities, and service. That committee shall report its findings to the professors and associate professors in the promotion and tenure unit. The promotion/tenure unit will recommend whether progress toward promotion and/or tenure is sufficient. The promotion/tenure unit head shall provide the faculty member under review with a written report telling him or her of progress toward promotion. The candidate is encouraged to reply in writing to the report and any reply becomes part of the report.
1.06-4 Post Tenure Review§
1.06-4 Post Tenure Review (Effective AY 2023-2024)
Each tenured faculty member must be reviewed every five years in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the promotion/tenure unit. These criteria and procedures must follow University policy as well as any policies at the college/school level.
The purpose of the review will be to examine, recognize, develop, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members at the University of Georgia.
The criteria should reflect the overall mission of the promotion/tenure unit and should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing responsibilities and particular strengths who contribute to the mission of the institution in distinct ways.
The promotion/tenure unit, as defined in the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure shall ensure that the criteria governing faculty review do not infringe on the accepted standards of academic freedom of faculty, including the freedom to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of inquiry. The review shall be carried out free of bias or prejudice by factors such as race, religion, sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation, or veteran status.
Reviews shall occur once every five years after tenure or promotion has been granted unless delayed because the faculty member is on leave; or because his or her review for promotion to professor is approved by the faculty of the promotion/tenure unit for the following year. These reviews may be combined with other reviews, including (but not limited to) nominations for chaired professorships, major teaching awards, graduate faculty appointments, national professional honors or awards. In the case of combined reviews, the Post-Tenure Review Committee may require supplementary documentation from the faculty member, which meets the below criteria in item B for review procedures.
Each promotion/tenure unit shall develop the policy by which the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall be selected. Such procedures to establish the committee may include election, lottery, or a committee of the whole; but cannot include appointment by the promotion/tenure unit head. The committee shall consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members and may include faculty from other promotion/tenure units contingent upon their willingness and availability to serve. The faculty member under review may formally object to the service of a faculty member in a review capacity. Up to five such objections will be honored if made to the promotion/tenure unit head, unless guidelines established within the promotion/tenure unit provide for a greater number. Every effort will be made to keep these formal objections confidential and the formal objections will not be released by the University, except as required by law. However, the peer-review committee shall include at least one member from the individual’s home promotion/tenure unit.
Review procedures shall include:
A review of qualitative and quantitative evidence of the faculty member’s performance over at least the previous five-year period. The evidence should include annual reviews by the promotion/tenure unit head, a current curriculum vitae, materials providing documentation of the faculty member’s accomplishments and contributions that the peer-review committee or the faculty member judge to be relevant to the review. The faculty member should provide the Post-Tenure Review Committee with a concise summary of accomplishments and future plans not to exceed two pages in length.
Discussion with the faculty member about his or her contributions to the the promotion/tenure unit and the University, if either the Post-Tenure Review Committee or the faculty member so desire.
Appropriate consideration of a faculty member’s contributions to interdisciplinary programs, governance, administration, and other programs outside the promotion/tenure unit.
The Post-Tenure Review Committee shall provide the faculty member with a concise, written summary of the review and a conclusion as to whether his/her performance is deemed satisfactory. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to prepare a written response to the summary. A copy of the summary and any written response to it shall be given to the promotion/tenure unit head and shall be placed in the personnel file of the faculty member. If the faculty member’s performance is deemed not satisfactory, the Post-Tenure Review Committee shall provide a report identifying the areas of weakness and suggest actions that might strengthen the faculty member’s performance.
The promotion/tenure unit head shall also maintain in the faculty member’s personnel file all documents that played a substantive role in the review (other than documents such as publications that are readily accessible elsewhere), and a record of any action taken as a result of the review.
A faculty member may request reconsideration of the post-tenure review recommendation of the Post-Tenure Review Committee by submitting a letter and additional documentation to the promotion/tenure unit head within fifteen days of the receipt of the written review.
A faculty member may appeal in writing a Post-Tenure Review Committee action or decision within fifteen days of the final action of the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The appeal will go to the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee. The Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee would be a seven-member faculty committee elected by the University Council for two-year staggered terms. The Executive Committee of the University Council shall nominate faculty members at the rank of professor with tenure from within and outside the University Council as candidates for election to the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee. No more than two members shall be from any one college. The committee shall elect its chair annually. The Office of Faculty Affairs of the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost will provide staff assistance.
Copies of the promotion/tenure unit’s post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be filed with the appropriate dean.
Promotion/tenure unit heads shall maintain a record of reviews completed, including the names of all reviewers.
At the end of each academic year, the appropriate dean shall receive a report from the promotion/tenure unit head, listing the names of faculty members reviewed during that academic year and summarizing the outcomes of the those reviews.
Any exceptions to this review process must be approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Council.
The periodic review of each promotion/tenure unit shall include review of the post-tenure process of the unit.
If a faculty member’s performance is deemed not satisfactory in the review, once all requests for reconsideration and appeals have been exhausted, the promotion/tenure unit head, the faculty member, and the chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee, must establish a formal plan of faculty development. This plan must be approved by the majority of the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Committee. The plan should a) define specific goals or outcomes to be achieved; b) outline activities that will be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes; c) set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes should be accomplished; and d) indicate appropriate criteria by which the faculty member will monitor progress. The promotion/tenure unit head will be responsible for forwarding the formal faculty development plan to the dean. The promotion/tenure unit head, the dean, and the appropriate vice president are jointly responsible for arranging suitable resources for the development plan, if required. The promotion/tenure unit head will meet with each faculty member whose performance was deemed unsatisfactory at the time of the annual evaluation to review progress toward achieving the goals or outcomes of the development plan. A progress report, which will be included in the annual review, will be forwarded each year to the appropriate administration officer at least one level above the faculty member’s promotion/tenure unit. It will be the responsibility of the promotion/tenure unit head and a peer review committee (selected as in III B) to determine if, after three years, the faculty member, whose performance was deemed not satisfactory, has been successful in completion of the faculty development plan. The promotion/tenure unit head will report that finding to the appropriate administrative officer at least one level above the faculty member’s promotion/tenure unit, who will proceed in accordance with University and Board of Regents’ policies.
The promotion/tenure unit shall prepare a plan for scheduling reviews of tenured faculty. The five-year cycle of reviews should begin during the 1997-98 academic year.
In all cases in which the unit head is the person being reviewed under this policy, an administrative officer one level above the unit head shall assume the unit head’s function in this review.
VI. Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee* Revised Operating Policy
A. The Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee, hereafter referred to as the Committee, shall prepare and review procedures for handling appeals, protect academic freedom and academic due process, and ensure compliance with the University’s Policy for Review of Tenured Faculty.
B. The Committee will only hear appeals following completed performance and unsatisfactory final assessment of a Performance Improvement Plan regarding:
i. the integrity and fairness of the post-tenure review unit’s processes in the case;
ii. the assessment of unsatisfactory on the Performance Improvement Plan;
iii. the reasonableness and appropriateness of a Performance Remediation Plan;
iv. the reasonableness and appropriateness of the Performance Improvement Plan;
v. the recommended remedial action for the unsatisfactory final assessment of the Performance Improvement Plan.
The process of appeal is as follows:
All appeals submitted in writing to the Committee must state fully the grounds upon which the appeal is based. This written appeal must be filed with the Committee within 10 University working days after receipt of the unsatisfactory final assessment of the Performance Improvement Plan.
When considering appeals, the Committee will act as a committee of the whole. The Committee must render a decision on the appeal. A final decision requires a majority vote of the whole Committee. If only a simple majority of the Committee is present, the vote must be unanimous. The Chair shall be a voting member of the Committee. To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the Committee shall not serve on any other post-tenure review committee during their term. Although committee members may recuse themselves if appropriate, a majority of the whole Committee still will be required for a decision to be rendered. Electronic voting is not permitted after the meeting. Proxies and absentee votes are never allowed.
Once an appeal is filed, the Committee may conduct an oral hearing and must do so upon written request from an appellant. In addition to the written appeal and the full record, the Committee may hear and consider oral testimony from the appellant as well as other individuals called by the appellant and/or the Committee who may help clarify the case. The appellant has a right to be accompanied by an advisor, such as an attorney, of their own choosing during the hearing. The burden is on the appellant's school or college to demonstrate the integrity and fairness of the unit’s processes and the reasonableness and appropriateness of the Performance Improvement Plan, Performance Remediation plans, and/or remedial action.
If a majority of the Committee’s members vote that the integrity and fairness of the post- tenure review unit’s processes were compromised, the Performance Improvement Plan and/or remedial action was inappropriate or unreasonable, and/or the final assessment injudicious, the decision of the post-tenure review unit will be reversed. Otherwise, the decision of the post-tenure review unit is affirmed.
The Chair of the Committee must communicate the decision (including all votes) electronically in writing to the appellant, the dean, and members of the post-tenure unit within 5 working days of the votes. The decision, including the votes, the appeal, and all associate documentation shall be placed in the appellant’s permanent file. Copies of all materials and the decision will be shared with the Office of the Provost.
Archived PTRAC Operating Policy*
* The Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (PTRAC) is also known as the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (FPTRAC)
1.06-5 Notice of Resignation and Employment§
All tenured faculty members employed under written contract for the fiscal or academic year shall give at least sixty (60) days written notice of their intention to resign to the president of the institution or to his/her authorized representative.
Notice of employment for non-tenured faculty:
All non-tenured faculty members currently under contract must be given notice of intention to renew or not to renew employment from the president of the institution or from his/her authorized representative. Notice of intention to renew or not to renew employment shall be furnished in writing on a schedule based on the faculty member’s rank. The schedule of notification does not apply to persons holding temporary, visiting, part-time or adjunct appointments.
Academic and Clinical Ranks
The following schedule applies to non-tenured faculty with Academic rank (Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor), and Clinical rank (Clinical Instructor, Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor):
- at least three months before the date of termination of an initial one-year contract;
- at least six months before the date of termination of a second one-year contract;
- at least nine months before the date of termination of a contract after two or more years of service in the institution.
The following schedule applies to non-tenured faculty with Lecturer and Senior Lecturer rank:
- At least 60 calendar days before the date of termination of the initial one-year or second one-year contract
- At least 90 calendar days before the date of termination of a third one-year, fourth one-year or fifth one-year contract
- At least 180 calendar days before the date of termination of the sixth or later one-year contract
- At least 180 calendar days before the date of termination of the current one-year contract
Academic Professional, Administrative A, Librarian, Public Service, Research Scientist, and Staff Physician Ranks
The following schedule applies to non-tenured faculty with Academic Professional rank (Academic Professional Associate, Academic Professional, Senior Academic Professional), Administrative A rank, Librarian rank (Librarian I, Librarian II, Librarian III, Librarian IV), Public Service rank (Public Service Representative, Public Service Assistant, Public Service Associate, Senior Public Service Associate), Research Scientist rank (Assistant Research Scientist, Associate Research Scientist, Senior Research Scientist), and Staff Physician rank:
- at least 90 calendar days before the date of termination of the current one-year contract
- Board of Regents’ Policy Manual, § 8.3.4
- Board of Regents Policy Manual, § 8.3.8
- University Cabinet, September 17, 2009
- Office of the Provost, June 10, 2010