EPUS is now beginning to address the issues of non-tenure track faculty.
They are going to look at:
1. UCCS Non-Tenure Track Faculty Bill of Rights
2. Report of the System Wide Committee on Non-Tenure Track Faculty
EPUS Review of the Report of Retreat of The General Education Committee
EPUS recommends that the Faculty Assembly circulate the Report on Retreat
of the General Education Committee to the entire faculty and consult widely
with the faculty before taking action on the document.
1. That the General Education Committee carefully consider and address the
particular identity of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
(e.g., state vs. private institution and significance numbers of
non-traditional students and transfer students);
2. That funding needs of proposals be more specifically addressed;
3. That the section and diagram addressing Themes, Methods, and Skills
Applications be clarified.
NOTE: The capitalized comments of the following are from the EPUS Committee:
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY STATEMENT
Title: Post-tenure Review Policy
Source: Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research
Prepared by: Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs
Approved by: Dave Groth
Application: All Campuses
Effective Date: July 1, 1998
Replaces: APS: "Implementation of Regent Policy on Post-tenure
Review," dated Spring 1984
In the summer of 1996, in response to legislative concerns about tenure,
President John C. Buechner appointed an ad hoc committee of faculty and
administrators from the four campuses of the University of Colorado. In
April of 1997, the Committee on Tenure and Post-tenure Review submitted its
report and recommendations on post-tenure review (PTR) to the President. At its
meeting on October 16, 1997, the Board of Regents adopted amendments to the
Laws of the Regent (Section 5B.4[B]) regarding the evaluation of faculty.
These revisions changed existing policy regarding post-tenure review and added to annual
merit evaluations the possibility of a performance improvement agreement
and a development plan for faculty performing inadequately.
The purpose of this administrative policy statement is to implement both
the changes made in the Laws regarding evaluation of faculty and the major
recommendations for revising the PTR process made by the ad hoc committee
on post-tenure review. This policy replaces the Administrative Policy
Statement on Post-tenure Review of Spring, 1984. It is consistent with the
principles adopted by the Faculty Council at its meeting on June 19, 1997,
and with the Laws of the Regents as revised on October 16, 1997.
STATEMENT OF POLICIES
1. The purposes of PTR are: (1) to facilitate continued faculty
development, consistent with the academic needs and goals of
the University and the most effective use of institutional resources; and
(2) to ensure professional accountability by a regular, comprehensive
evaluation of every tenured faculty member's performance.
EPUS NOTES THAT THE FIRST PURPOSE OF POST-TENURE REVIEW IS "TO FACILITATE
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT" AND INSISTS THAT ALL POST-TENURE ACTIONS BE CONDUCTED
IN THIS SPIRIT. FURTHER, EPUS SEES FUNDING FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT AS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THE PROCESS; DISMISSAL PROCEDURES MAY NOT BE CONDUCTED
WITHOUT SERIOUS EFFORTS, INCLUDING FUNDING, AT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT.
2. The PTR evaluation will be conducted by appropriate faculty peers
within the campus, either the primary unit faculty or the faculty of the
appropriate college personnel review committee. Other units may be
consulted as appropriate. Each campus will develop procedures for
appropriate peer evaluation during PTR and for appeals of the PTR
evaluation. Each faculty member shall be informed orally and in writing of
the results of the evaluation.
HERE AGAIN, EPUS AGREES THAT, FROM FIRST TO LAST, POST-TENURE REVIEW MUST
BE CONDUCTED BY "APPROPRIATE FACULTY PEERS." IN THE SELECTION OF
"APPROPRIATE FACULTY PEERS," CHOICE MUST BE PROVIDED; AND APPEALS MUST BE
3. Existing PTR procedures (of the campuses, colleges/schools, and primary
units) must be amended to conform to this administrative policy statement
and the amended procedures must be approved by the appropriate dean and the
vice chancellor for academic affairs.
EPUS REMINDS ALL PARTIES THAT PROCEDURAL CHANGES MUST ORIGINATE WITH THE
FACULTY AND, FIRST, BE APPROVED BY THE FACULTY.
4. PTR will evaluate faculty performance in teaching, research/creative
work, and service, the same areas of professional competence and
achievement that are used in tenure and promotion reviews and in annual
merit evaluations. The primary unit's written standards for reappointment,
tenure, and promotion describe the nature and measures of achievement in
teaching, research/creative work, and service within the discipline (as
required by the administrative policy statement, "Procedures for Written
Standards and Criteria for Pre-Tenure Faculty," 7/1/89) that should be
employed in PTR evaluations. Primary units
may revise their written standards to include guidelines/descriptions of
"meeting expectations," the standard of acceptable professional performance.
HERE AND ELSEWHERE EPUS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF THE PHRASE
"RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY/ CREATIVE WORK." EPUS ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT AN
EVALUATION OF "NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS" WILL RESULT FROM AN UNACCEPTABLE
PERFORMANCE IN TWO AREAS OF EVALUATION.
5. The level of review to be undertaken--Regular or Extensive--will be
determined by the record of annual "Performance Ratings for Faculty," the
non-confidential summaries of annual merit evaluations (mandated by the
administrative policy statement, "Performance Ratings for Faculty,
Unclassified Staff/Administrators, and Officers," 7/1/89). The annual merit evaluation,
which is based on peer review, remains the basic tool of faculty
evaluation. Because the annual Performance Rating summary is the document
that may trigger an Extensive Review, faculty who do not agree with their
annual Performance Ratings may appeal the rating through established grievance procedures in
EPUS RECOGNIZES THAT THE APPEAL OF AN ANNUAL SALARY RATING MAY TAKE PLACE
AT THE COLLEGE, CAMPUS, AND SYSTEM LEVELS. THE FACULTY INVOLVED SHOULD
DETERMINE WHETHER APPEAL COMMITTEES WILL BE APPOINTED OR ELECTED.
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW
A. Regular Review
1. Faculty who have achieved summary evaluations of "meeting expectations"
or better since the last PTR (or since receiving tenure if this is their
first PTR) will undergo Regular Review, as will faculty who have received a
single "below expectations" evaluation in the five-year review cycle.
Faculty who receive a summary evaluation of "below expectations" are
required to meet with members of their primary unit and/or the unit head to
identify the causes of the unsatisfactory evaluation and to plan and
implement a written Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA) to remedy their
problems. (See Section B below)
HERE AGAIN, AN EVALUATION OF "BELOW EXPECTATIONS" WILL BE RENDERED ONLY IF
A FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE IS INADEQUATE IN AT LEAST TWO AREAS OF
EVALUATION. ACCOMMODATIONS MUST BE MADE FOR FACULTY WITH APPROVED
2. In a Regular Review, the primary unit examines the five previous annual
performance evaluation reports, including the FCQs, peer review of
teaching, and, if desired, other types of teaching evaluation, and the
faculty member's Professional Plan(s) from that PTR cycle. (See the
administrative policy statement on "The Professional Plan for Faculty.") In
addition, the faculty member will provide the primary unit with an updated
Professional Plan for the next five years.
SUCH A REVIEW WOULD BETTER BE TERMED "A REGULAR FIVE-YEAR REVIEW."
3. The primary unit will write a brief report summarizing the unit's
findings regarding the faculty member's adherence to the previous
Professional Plan(s) (taking into account the differentiated workload,
where present) and conclusions about his/her productivity and contributions
to the University in teaching, research/creative work, and service. These reports will be forwarded to the
dean, who will report to the academic vice chancellor on the results of all
the post-tenure reviews in the college/school. A copy of the PTR report
will be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.
FACULTY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE , ORALLY AND IN WRITING, ANY
"BELOW EXPECTATION" EVALUATION BEFORE IT IS FORWARDED TO THE VICE
CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS. CLARIFICATION OF "PRIMARY UNIT" IS
NEEDED. DOES THIS MEAN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S CHAIR?
B. The Performance Improvement Agreement
1. Faculty who receive a "below expectations" summary rating as the result
of their annual performance evaluation must participate in developing and
implementing a Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA) designed to improve
their performance. Of course, a faculty member may appeal the "below
expectation" evaluation to the primary unit head and/or dean and then to
the dean's review committee or another suitable college committee. No
action will be taken to begin a PIA until this appeal process, if invoked,
is completed. This appeal process should be completed within six weeks or
FACULTY MEMBERS WHO RECEIVE A "BELOW EXPECTATIONS SUMMARY" "MUST
PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMNET
AGREEMENT (PIA) DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE"; THE UNIVERSITY
MUST, IN GOOD FAITH, SUPPORT THIS EFFORT WITH ITS MANY RESOURCES, INCLUDING
2. Working with the primary unit head or an appropriate committee of the
primary unit (as determined by primary unit policy), the faculty member
develops a PIA that includes specific goals, timelines, and benchmarks that
shall be used to measure progress at periodic intervals. Usually, PIAs will
be established for one year. But, if research deficiencies warrant longer,
the PIA may be set up for two years.
EPUS ARGUES AGAINST QUANTIFIABLE GOALS IN THE PIA AND INSISTES THAT SUCH
DOCUMENTS BE AMENDABLE.
3. If the goals of the PIA are being/have been met, as evidenced in the
next annual merit evaluation, the faculty member continues in the regular
five-year post-tenure review cycle.
4. If the goals of the PIA are not being/have not been met at the next
annual merit evaluation, an extensive review process shall be initiated.
C. Extensive Review
1. Faculty who have received two "below expectations" ratings within the
previous five years will undergo Extensive Review. As soon as a faculty
member receives a second rating of "below expectations" (within a five year
period), he/she will be subject to Extensive Review. A faculty member may
appeal a "below expectations" evaluation to the primary unit head and/or
dean and then to the dean's review committee or another suitable college
committee. No action will be taken to begin an Extensive Review until this
appeal process, if invoked, is completed. This appeal process should be
completed within six weeks or less.
EPUS RECOMMENDS THAT FACULTY MAY APPEAL NOT JUST TO A "PRIMARY UNIT HEAD"
BUT TO A PRIMARY UNIT COMMITTEE.
2. Because Extensive Review is designed to assist faculty who are falling
below the level of satisfactory professional performance, it takes place
whenever a faculty member establishes a pattern of unsatisfactory
performance, i.e., two evaluations of performance "below expectations" in a five year period. The
faculty member, the department, and the students of the University all
benefit from promptly addressing emerging deficiencies in professional
ONCE AGAIN, FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED TO ASSIST FACULTY.
3. For an Extensive Review, the primary unit will examine: (1) the five
previous annual performance evaluation reports; (2) the FCQs from those
years, peer evaluations, and, if desired, other types of teaching
evaluation; (3) the faculty member's previous Professional Plan (and any
amendments to the plan, and differentiated workload agreements, where
present); (4) the faculty member's self-evaluation of performance as it
relates to the Professional Plan(s); and (5) any other material the faculty
member would like the unit to consider.
4. The primary unit prepares an evaluative report of the faculty member's
teaching, research/creative work, and service based upon its review of the
materials and information covering the period in question. If there is
disagreement about the faculty member's performance in research/creative
work, or if the faculty member under review or the primary unit so
requests, the review will also include evaluations from qualified persons
external to the University. In this case, the faculty member and the
primary unit shall jointly develop a list of external reviewers who will be
asked to evaluate the faculty member's performance in research/creative work.
5. Primary units, colleges/schools, and campuses may require other
materials for Extensive Reviews, if appropriate, but the aim should be to
keep the process efficient and effective.
HERE AGAIN, EPUS SEES THE NEED FOR AN APPEALS PROCESS. REQUIRED MATERIALS
SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE; FACULTY MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ADD MATERIALS WHICH THEY DEEM REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE.
D. The Development Plan
1. Upon completion of the evaluative report (see Section C.4), the faculty
member, working with the appropriate primary unit committee, shall write a
Development Plan for the next one or two years with specific goals and
actions designed to address the areas of deficiency identified in the
Extensive Review process. The Development Plan must address the teaching,
research/creative work, and service assignments anticipated during the
period of the plan. It must describe performance goals in light of
identified deficiencies, strategies for improvement, and the time frame (up
to two years) in which the problems are to be solved. The Plan must contain
definite means of measuring progress in achieving the goals and periodic
monitoring of progress. The Development Plan must be approved by the
primary unit head, following consultation with the appropriate primary unit committee.
FUNDING MUST BE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT. QUANTIFIABLE PLANS SHOULD
2. While the individual faculty member is responsible ultimately for the
successful outcome of the Development Plan, the primary unit has an
obligation to assist the faculty member who seeks guidance in developing a
realistic plan to remedy the identified areas of deficiency.
THE PRIMARY UNIT SHOULD ASSIST THE FACULTY MEMBER IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE,
INCLUDING THE SEARCH FOR FUNDS.
3. Assessments of professional competence depend upon peer review. At the
conclusion of the Development Plan, either (1) the faculty and head of the
primary unit or (2) the faculty of the appropriate college personnel review
committee assess the progress of the faculty member and forward their
conclusions to the dean. After consultation with the dean's review committee,
the dean determines whether the faculty member has achieved the goals of
the Development Plan and thus has returned his/her professional performance
to the level of competence. Those who are judged to have achieved
professional competence (meeting expectations or better) begin a new PTR
cycle in the next academic year. Those who are judged not to have achieved professional
competence will face sanctions, including the possibility of revocation of
tenure and dismissal. Copies of the Extensive Review Development Plan and
the primary unit's assessment of the progress achieved by the end of the
development period will be added to the faculty member's personnel file.
THE FACULTY MEMBER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE REPORT AND
TO APPEAL IT.
1. In cases where the Development Plan (drawn up as a result of the
Extensive Review process) has not produced the desired results, sanctions
shall be imposed. Possible sanctions include: reassignment of duties; loss
of eligibility for sabbaticals or for campus travel funds; salary freeze;
salary reduction; demotion in rank; and revocation of tenure and dismissal.
Each campus shall establish a schedule of sanctions, appropriate to its
environment and calibrated to various levels of performance deficiency. An
appropriate faculty committee shall recommend sanctions. The chancellor
makes the final determination of sanctions. If the chancellor's decision is
to recommend revocation of tenure and dismissal of the faculty member to
the Board of Regents, the Laws of the Regents provide the faculty member
with an opportunity for a hearing and set other conditions for handling
such cases. (See Laws of the Regents, Article 5.C.1 and 5.C.4; and 8/27/66
Regent Action adopting 1940 AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
Revocation of tenure and dismissal for the cause of demonstrable
professional incompetence has long been recognized policy at the University
of Colorado, and across higher education in the United States.
Professional incompetence is defined to mean the failure to perform
teaching, research/creative works, and service duties in a consistent and
satisfactory professional manner. A judgment of professional incompetence
is based upon peer review of the faculty member's performance. The PTR
process provides such peer review. (Other causes for dismissal also exist
and are outlined in Article 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents.)
REGARDING SANCTIONS, EPUS STATES AND REITERATES THE FOLLOWING POINTS AND
1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT, INCLUDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, FOR THE
FACULTY MEMBER SHALL NULLIFY ANY SANCTIONS.
2. SANCTIONS SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY IN EXTREME CASES AND AS MEASURE OF LAST
3. A SENSE OF PROPORTIONALITY SHALL BE USED IN THE APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS.
4. THE FACULTY COMMITTEE REPORT SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING AND SHALL, WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE FACULTY MEMBER, BE MADE PUBLIC.
5. THE CHANCELLOR SHALL STATE IN HIS/HER DETERMINATION THE SANCTION
RECOMMENDED BY THE FACULTY COMMITTEE.
6. SANCTIONS SHALL APPLY ONLY IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A "FAILURE TO
PERFORM TEACHING, RESEARCH/CREATIVE WORKS, AND SERVICE DUITES IN A
CONSISTENT AND SATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL MANNER." THAT IS, THE FACULTY
MEMBER MUST BE DEFICIENT IN ALL THREE AREAS OF EVALUATION.
7. "A JUDGMENT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE IS BASED UPON PEER REVIEW."
8. ANY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REVOCATION OF TENURE AND DISMISSAL MUST BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF THE REGENTS AND THE AAUP STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC
FREEDOM AND TENURE.