Policy for Review of Tenured Faculty

Each promotion/tenure unit shall establish written criteria and procedures governing the periodic review of each tenured faculty member.

  1. Purpose

    The purpose of the review will be to examine, recognize, develop, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members at the University of Georgia.

  2. Criteria

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  3. Procedures

    1. 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.

    2. 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:

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

      3. Appropriate consideration of a faculty member’s contributions to interdisciplinary programs, governance, administration, and other programs outside the promotion/tenure unit.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  4. Accountability

    1. Copies of the promotion/tenure unit’s post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be filed with the appropriate dean.

    2. Promotion/tenure unit heads shall maintain a record of reviews completed, including the names of all reviewers.

    3. 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.

    4. Any exceptions to this review process must be approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Council.

    5. The periodic review of each promotion/tenure unit shall include review of the post-tenure process of the unit.

    6. 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.

  5. Implementation

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

University Council
January 1997

VI. Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee* Operating Policy

  1. The Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (PTRAC) shall hear only appeals from a post-tenure review in which the faculty member has received an evaluation of "unsatisfactory" by the post-tenure review unit. Before an appeal may be filed with the PTRAC, the faculty member must have exhausted all appropriate administrative remedies within the school or college. If the faculty member then wishes to file an appeal with the PTRAC, he/she must submit a written request for appeal to the PTRAC stating fully the grounds on which the appeal is based. This written request must be filed with the PTRAC within 15 days after a final decision has been rendered by the school or college under the appropriate administrative appeals procedure.
  2. In extraordinary cases, the PTRAC, in its sole discretion, may grant a variance from the exhaustion requirement if the appellant petitions the PTRAC for such a variance in writing and shows good cause why the exhaustion requirement should not apply. The written request for variance must be filed with the PTRAC within 15 days of receiving the unsatisfactory post-tenure evaluation.
  3. In considering appeals, the PTRAC will act as a committee of the whole. The Chair shall be a voting member of the committee. A final decision requires a simple majority of the whole committee (4/7). To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the PTRAC shall not serve on any other post-tenure review committee during their term as a PTRAC member.
  4. Once an appeal is filed, the PTRAC may consider the fairness of the evaluation process within the post-tenure review unit, the reasonableness of the determination, as well as the appropriateness of the COURSE OF ACTION suggested by the post-tenure review unit THAT MIGHT STRENGTHEN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE. In addition to the written appeal, the committee, in its sole discretion, may hear and consider oral testimony.
  5. If the PTRAC decides that the decision of the post-tenure review unit is fair and valid, and that the suggested COURSE OF ACTION FOR improvement IS appropriate, the decision of the post-tenure review unit will then be final and binding on the appellant. If, instead, the PTRAC decides that the evaluation process was flawed or that the determination of unsatisfactory is invalid, the PTRAC may ( 1) order that the matter be reheard by the post-tenure committee as if the matter had not previously been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered, or (2) it may ORDER that the decision of the post-tenure review unit be reversed outright. IF THE PTRAC DECIDES THAT ONLY PART OF THE REVIEW WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE PTRAC MAY REMAND THE MATTER TO THE LOWER COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER ACTION AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
  6. If the PTRAC decides that the evaluation itself is fair and valid, but the suggested COURSE OF ACTION FOR improvement IS not appropriate, the PTRAC may 1) hold MEETINGS with the POST-TENURE REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE appellant and the PROMOTION/TENURE UNIT head in order to reach a satisfactory solution, 2) remand to the post-tenure review COMMITTEE with recommendations, or 3) recommend outside mediation.
  7. The decision of the PTRAC is final and binding. The prior decision of any other committee is not binding on the PTRAC, although the PTRAC may take such a decision into consideration. If issues before the PTRAC are being considered simultaneously by the Faculty Grievance Committee, the Faculty Grievance proceeding shall be stayed until the PTRAC renders its decision.

Approved 2001

Archived PTRAC Operating Policy*

* The Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (PTRAC) is also known as the Faculty Post-Tenure Review Appeals Committee (FPTRAC)