Finance Post-tenure Review Standards and Procedures

1. Introduction

The post-tenure review process should be a positive experience for each faculty member and for the Department as a whole.  As tenured faculty members, we recognize the value of professional accountability, and welcome the opportunity to exhibit our continuing professional contributions. This process can provide an early warning system for any collegial concerns regarding a faculty member’s overall professional performance.  On behalf of our untenured colleagues and future faculty candidates, as well as for ourselves, therefore, we have developed these departmental post-tenure review standards and procedures.  In so doing, we have made every effort to avoid potentially negative impacts on the Department, either immediate or over time, that might result from the implementation of this post-tenure review process.

We perceive post-tenure reviews as very different from the annual reviews conducted by the Department Chair for purposes of salary-adjustment recommendations, and of course, quite different from the procedures used for recommending tenure or promotion.  We have achieved consensus on the following attributes, minimum standards, and procedures for our Department:

1. Post-tenure review should be conducted by an elected departmental evaluation committee, rather than by the Department Chair.
   
   
2. Post-tenure evaluations should be based upon the two-year activity reports we submit in accordance with our College Faculty By-laws, and should be completed in March of each year.
   
   
3. A series of satisfactory annual performance evaluations should imply a satisfactory five-year evaluation.  An unsatisfactory five-year evaluation would be perverse unless that evaluation had been preceded by several unsatisfactory annual evaluations during the preceding five years.
   
   
4. The minimum standards for teaching, research and service should be more general than specific to allow for the variety of contributions faculty members make over their professional careers to the Department, the College, the University, the profession, and society as a whole.
   
   
5. When applying these minimum standards to determine whether or not overall performance has been satisfactory, we should recognize that teaching, research and service activities vary from year to year, and that more extensive contributions in one area will frequently compensate for less achievement in one or more of the other areas.  The ability of the Department to serve all its constituencies effectively requires a portfolio of faculty members who have quite different capabilities and assume quite different roles and responsibilities during their careers.

2. Minimum Standards for Satisfactory Performance of Tenured Faculty

Satisfactory teaching performance

Faculty members must demonstrate competence in teaching, and a commitment to a quality classroom experience for students.  They should contribute positively to the instructional mission of the Department.  Satisfactory teaching performance will have the following qualities:

1. class content is current and appropriate to the course topic and level of student
2. faculty member meets normal course obligations such as holding office hours, grading and returning assignments and tests in a reasonable time frame, assigning grades fairly, and following university regulations and guidelines regarding course conduct
3. faculty member’s average course grades do not differ significantly from the departmental norm of similar courses
4. faculty member seeks to introduce innovative instructional techniques and promote a positive classroom environment.

Satisfactory research performance

Faculty members must make a positive contribution to the development of knowledge in the discipline.  Such contributions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. publication of peer-reviewed refereed academic journal articles
2. publication of scholarly books
3. conducting research grants
4. presenting original research at professional conferences

Satisfactory service performance

Faculty members must make positive contributions to the functioning of the Department, the College, and the University.  Service contributions to the discipline of finance also contribute to service performance.  Satisfactory service performance includes the following:

1. performing a fair share of committee work for the Department, College and University
2. mentoring other faculty members and/or doctoral students, and contributing toward collegiality within the department
3. editorial work and manuscript reviewing for scholarly journals and conferences.
4. serving as an officer and/or on program committees for professional associations.

Satisfactory overall performance

A rating of satisfactory for overall performance will be given if performance in two or more of the three areas above is satisfactory.  A rating of unsatisfactory will be given if performance in two or more of the areas is unsatisfactory.  At least a two-thirds majority of the committee must agree that the faculty member’s overall performance has been unsatisfactory.

3. Performance Review Procedures for Tenured Faculty

Annual review

1. By February 15 of each year (consistent with College annual review bylaws), every tenured faculty member in the Finance Department, including those with part-time administrative positions but excluding the Department Chair, will submit to the Department a signed report describing her/his activities in teaching, research, and service. The report will consist of the following elements:
   1. the annual activity report normally prepared by all faculty members of the; this report covers activities for the prior two calendar years
   2. teaching portfolio including course syllabi and sample teaching and testing materials
   3. teaching evaluations for the prior calendar year for the three core items on the course evaluation form
   4. vita
   5. any other materials requested by the committee or that the individual faculty member believes would be relevant for more appropriate assessment of his/her performance.

2. This report will be evaluated by the Tenured Faculty Review Committee.  This elected committee will normally be composed of four members (assuming availability) elected from among the tenured faculty members of the Finance Department.  The committee will be elected by the tenured and tenure-track faculty in the department.  The Department Chair is not eligible to serve on the committee.  The committee chair will be elected by the committee members.
   
   
3. The committee will evaluate each tenured faculty member in the Department (excluding the Department Chair) as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in each of the primary categories, teaching, research and service, and will also provide an overall evaluation of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  Evaluation will be made according to the criteria described in the Department’s Minimum Standards for Satisfactory Performance of Tenured Faculty.  Members of the committee shall not evaluate themselves, but will be evaluated by the remaining three members of the committee.
   
   
4. By March 15, the committee shall provide each faculty member and the Department Chair with a written statement of evaluation as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in the three areas of teaching, research, and service, and an overall evaluation.  If any element is deemed by the committee to be unsatisfactory, a written explanation of the basis for this judgment shall be included in the statement.  A copy of the written evaluation will be placed in the faculty member’s permanent file.
   
   
5. Within two weeks after provision of the written evaluation, the faculty member will sign it to acknowledge its receipt and return a copy of the signed evaluation to the Department Chair.  Even if the faculty member disagrees with the content of the evaluation, he/she must sign the document to acknowledge its receipt.  The signature does not imply agreement.  Moreover, the faculty member may prepare a written objection or rebuttal to the committee’s evaluation for the record to be included in his/her permanent file.

Appeals of annual review

6. If any element of a faculty member’s performance is rated as unsatisfactory, the faculty member may appeal the evaluation.  The appeal must be made in writing to the committee and should include the reasons why the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation; it may include additional information that the faculty member wishes the committee to consider.  Appeals must be made by April 15.
   
   
7. The committee will review the appeal within two weeks of its receipt.  If the committee changes its evaluation based on the appeal, a new written evaluation will be prepared and will replace the earlier version in the faculty member’s permanent file.  Within two weeks of the issuance of the new written evaluation, the faculty member will sign it to acknowledge its receipt and return a copy of the signed evaluation to the Department Chair.  Even if the faculty member disagrees with the content of the evaluation, he/she must sign the document to acknowledge its receipt.  The signature does not imply agreement.
   
8. If the faculty member is dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal process, she/he may prepare a written rebuttal to be inserted in her/his permanent file.

Unsatisfactory rating of overall performance in annual review

9. If a faculty member is given an overall performance evaluation of unsatisfactory, there must be a face-to-face discussion of the evaluation by April 21 that includes the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the chair of the Tenured Faculty Review Committee.  The faculty member may request (and be granted) a meeting date before April 15.  However, the faculty member cannot refuse to attend such a meeting when it is arranged or demonstrate obstructionism in its scheduling.  Should the faculty member choose to avail her/himself of the appeals procedure described above, she/he may request (and be granted) some delay in this meeting; in any event, this meeting must occur by May 15.

Five-year review

10. At five-year intervals, each tenured faculty member, including those with part-time administrative positions but excluding the Department Chair, will submit to the Department a five-year report of her/his activities in teaching, research and service. This report will be made by February 15 and will replace the annual review that is ordinarily scheduled at this time.   The five-year report will consist of the following elements:

1. a narrative overview of the faculty member’s activities in the prior five years in the areas of teaching, research, and service, not to exceed three pages
2. the annual activity reports for the five preceding years
3. teaching portfolio evaluation reports for the four preceding years as prepared by the Departmental Peer Teaching Committee
4. teaching evaluations for the five preceding calendar years for the three core items on the course evaluation form
5. evaluation statements prepared by the Tenured Faculty Review Committee for the four preceding years
6. vita
7. any other materials requested by the committee or that the individual faculty member believes would be relevant for more appropriate assessment of his/her performance.

11. The first five-year reviews will be conducted in the Winter 2008 semester.  Otherwise, the five-year review for each faculty member will be conducted five years after the tenure decision, or five years after the faculty member’s most recent promotion in rank, whichever is later.  Faculty hired with tenure will be reviewed five years after they are hired.
    
    
12. Based on the five-year report, the Tenured Faculty Review Committee will evaluate the faculty member’s overall performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  Evaluation will be made according to the criteria described in Minimum Standards for Satisfactory Performance of Tenured Faculty.  Members of the committee shall not evaluate themselves but will be evaluated by the remaining three members of the committee.
    
    
13. By March 15, the committee shall provide each faculty member undergoing a five-year review and the Department Chair with a written statement of their evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  If performance is evaluated as unsatisfactory, a written explanation of the basis for this judgment shall be included in the statement.  A copy of the written evaluation will be forwarded to the Department Chair and placed in the faculty member’s permanent file.
    
    
14. Within two weeks after provision of the written evaluation, the faculty member will sign it to acknowledge its receipt and return a copy of the signed evaluation to the Department Chair.  Even if the faculty member disagrees with the content of the evaluation, he/she must sign the document to acknowledge its receipt.  The signature does not imply agreement.  Moreover, the faculty member may prepare a written objection or rebuttal to the committee’s evaluation for the record to be included in his/her permanent file.
    
    
15. If the faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of satisfactory in the five-year review by the committee, the five-year review process is complete.

Five-year evaluation of “unsatisfactory”

1. If a faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of unsatisfactory in the five-year review by the committee, the faculty member may appeal the evaluation in writing to the committee, and should include the reasons why the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation.  The written appeal may include additional information that the faculty member wishes the committee to consider.  Appeals must be made by April 15.
   
   
2. If a faculty member subsequently receives confirmation of an overall performance evaluation of unsatisfactory in the five-year review by the committee, the Department Chair will evaluate the faculty member’s performance independently based on the five-year report, using the criteria set forth in the Minimum Standards for Satisfactory Performance of Tenured Faculty.  The Department Chair will also consider any information the faculty member may have provided in an appeal (as described in #16 above).  By May 1, the Chair will provide the faculty member with a written statement of her/his evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  If performance is evaluated as unsatisfactory, a written explanation of the basis for this judgment shall be included in the statement.  A copy of the written evaluation will be forwarded to the chair of the Tenured Faculty Review Committee, and a copy will be placed in the faculty member’s permanent file.
   
   
3. Within two weeks after provision of the Department Chair’s written evaluation, the faculty member will sign it to acknowledge its receipt and return a copy of the signed evaluation to the Department Chair.  Even if the faculty member disagrees with the content of the evaluation, he/she must sign the document to acknowledge its receipt.  The signature does not imply agreement.  Moreover, the faculty member may prepare a written objection or rebuttal to the Department Chair’s evaluation for the record to be included in his/her permanent file.
   
   
4. If the faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of satisfactory in the five-year review by the Department Chair, the five-year review process is complete.  The faculty member’s overall performance evaluation, as shown in her/his permanent file, will be adjusted to a satisfactory rating.
   
   
5. If a faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of unsatisfactory in the five-year review by the Department Chair, the faculty member may appeal the evaluation to the Dean of the College.  The appeal must be made in writing to the Dean, and should include the reasons why the faculty member disagrees with the evaluation.  The appeal may include additional information the faculty member wishes the Dean to consider.  Appeals must be made by May 30.
   
   
6. If a faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of unsatisfactory in the five-year review by both the Tenured Faculty Review Committee and the Department Chair, the Dean will independently evaluate the faculty member’s performance based on the five-year report, using the criteria set forth in the Departmental Minimum Standards for Satisfactory Performance of Tenured Faculty.  The Dean will also consider any information the faculty member may have provided in an appeal (as described in #20 above).  By June 15, the Dean will provide the faculty member with a written statement of her/his evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  If performance is evaluated as unsatisfactory, written explanation of the basis for this judgment shall be included in the statement.  A copy of the written evaluation will be forwarded to the Department Chair and to the chair of the Tenured Faculty Review Committee; a copy will also be placed in the faculty member’s permanent file.
   
   
7. Within two weeks after provision of the Dean’s written evaluation, the faculty member will sign it to acknowledge its receipt and return a copy of the signed evaluation to the Dean’s office.    Even if the faculty member disagrees with the content of the evaluation, he/she must sign the document to acknowledge its receipt.  The signature does not imply agreement.  Moreover, the faculty member may prepare a written objection or rebuttal to the Dean’s evaluation for the record to be included in his/her permanent file.
   
   
8. If the faculty member receives an overall performance evaluation of satisfactory in the five-year review by the Dean, the five-year review process is complete. The faculty member’s overall performance evaluation in his/her permanent file will be adjusted to a satisfactory rating.