Skip to main content

Annual Reviews

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF TENURED FACULTY

(FHB B4.9 Post-Tenure Review)

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF ANNUAL REVIEWS FOR RETENTION, TENURE AND PROMOTION

(FAQ'S PP(9-10)

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW FOR TENURED FACULTY

(FHB B4.9 Post-Tenure Review)

TEMPLATE FOR ANNUAL REVIEW

(Under Development)

CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERSONAL RECORDS

(FHB C70)

All tenured faculty must undergo an annual review

Data collected annually for tenured faculty:

  • Biographical update
  • Teaching evaluations including periodic peer reviews
  • Salary recommendations to Dean (see 4.9.6)

[Note: 4.9.3 is the only FHB reference to a “biographical update form.” Departments vary widely in the format used. Some have requested that Academic Affairs provide a generic template. Others have suggested that an annual CV update should be required.]

4.9.1 Introduction

The Post Tenure Review Policy ensures that all tenured faculty members will receive an annual review and that those with either exceptionally good performance or deficiency in one or more areas will be identified. Special achievement shall be rewarded in a manner determined by each college/ school. For a faculty member who receives two successive annual reviews with identified uncorrected deficiencies, the Post-Tenure Review policy provides a mechanism to either (a) overturn the findings of deficiency in the annual reviews or (b) establish a remedial program for correcting the deficiencies.

4.9.2 General Principles

A tenured professor who performs well should be rewarded, and one who performs inadequately should seek or accept help and improve or be subject to dismissal. The purpose of UNM’s post-tenure review is to determine levels of performance efficiently, equitably, and in conformity with tenure rights expressed in the Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure and guaranteed by the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

4.9.3 Data Collection

Biographical updates, student evaluations of teaching (supplemented by periodic but not necessarily annual peer evaluations of teaching), and (with necessary exceptions, as in the Medical School) evaluations for salary recommendations shall be required annually of all faculty, including tenured professors. Some departments and divisions may also wish to require information more detailed than in the current biographical update form. The biographical update shall include space for objectives for the coming year.

Department standards and evaluation criteria shall be approved by the departmental faculty and the dean, and shall articulate what is exceptional performance and what is deficient performance (see 4.9.1)

Annual review procedures should include at minimum what is described below in 4.9.5.

Deans should have a statement on file of each department’s annual review criteria and procedures

4.9.4 Performance Criteria

Deans shall require each department or division to file a statement of criteria and procedures for annual evaluation of the performance of tenured faculty members. The criteria and procedures shall be consistent with the Faculty Handbook, reflect the standards of excellence and appropriate balance of teaching, research, or other creative activity, and service prevailing in the discipline and department or division, and have the approval of the department or division faculty and the dean. At a minimum, the procedures shall include an annual written evaluation, as described below. Sec. 1 (of this Policy) describes good teaching and good research at some length, including the importance of one’s original research in imparting new ideas in the classroom and inspiring students to engage in original research. Sec. 1 also stresses the need for service in the department, the University, and one’s discipline, particularly by senior members of the faculty. (Reviews from outside the University, as suggested in Sec. 1, shall not normally be included in annual and more formal post-tenure reviews [Sec. 4.9.5 and 4.9.7].)

Annual Reviews can be conducted by the Chair or by a faculty committee

In addition to critiquing and documenting performance, goals for the next year should be included

Faculty member receives two copies-1 to keep and 1 to sign and return, acknowledging receipt

Faculty members may add comments or rebuttals; faculty can also appeal to the dean

Faculty shall have access to the aggregate information for the department as a whole for purposes of comparison, protecting the confidentiality of other faculty members in the process

A copy shall be placed in the personnel file

4.9.5 Annual Reviews

Each department shall conduct an annual review of each tenured faculty member’s teaching, scholarly work, and service. This review, which may be combined with salary review and may be performed by the chair or the chair and a committee of tenured faculty, shall be in writing (normally 50 to 100 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and contain a description and critique of performance during the past year and performance goals for the coming year. It shall be discussed with the faculty member if there are deficiencies. Two copies of the annual review, signed by the chair, shall be given to the faculty member, one to be signed as acknowledgment of receipt and returned to the chair. A faculty member who disagrees with the review may add a comment or rebuttal. The review and any such statement shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member, in addition, may appeal the chair’s evaluation to the dean. At any point in these or subsequent proceedings, the faculty member shall have access to aggregate information concerning the teaching evaluations, publications, grants, etc., of the department as a whole for purposes of comparison. Aggregate information shall be determined by each department and will contain, at a minimum, summary data of faculty activities in the areas of teaching, scholarly work and service. In the dissemination of aggregate data, confidentiality shall be protected to the extent provided by law.

Administrators who hold tenured faculty rank shall also be reviewed on the performance of their faculty duties (teaching, research, and service). The manner in which the chair and other administrators are reviewed shall be decided by an agreement between the dean and tenured faculty in the unit, in a manner consistent with the intent of this document. Administrators who have no assigned faculty duties within the department will not be reviewed under this policy.

[Note: the 50-to-100 word reference in B4.9.5 has been interpreted by Academic Affairs as a floor and not a ceiling]


Note: Unlike in the case of probationary, tenure or promotional reviews, the FHB does not specify a time of the year during which the annual review of faculty should occur. Given the significant of the annual review for determining merit compensation increases during the March-April budget cycle, annual reviews based on calendar years and not academic or fiscal years would be prudent and allowable under current policy.

Chairs should send annually a 50-word-per-faculty summary of each faculty review to the Dean

This summary assists with determining compensation merit increases

[Note: B4.9.6 is currently the only FHB section that specifies criteria for compensation, i.e., “Merit, as determined in annual salary reviews, shall be the primary criterion for raises.”]

4.9.6 Reports to Deans

Each department shall annually provide the dean with summaries of the reviews of all faculty members (normally no more than 50 words for most faculty, more for those with special achievements or identified deficiencies) and the full text of any comment or rebuttal. The summaries shall include the special achievements or identified deficiencies of individual faculty members. Merit, as determined in annual salary reviews, shall be the primary criterion for raises. In the case of special achievement, the summary shall state the rewards to be provided. The dean or a college committee shall participate in the merit award for special achievement. In the case of deficiency, the summary shall suggest remedies, and the chair and the dean shall monitor improvements. If the dean disagrees with the chair’s evaluation, he or she shall so inform the chair and the faculty member.

Two successive annual reviews noting uncorrected deficiencies triggers a post-tenure review to establish a remedial program (4.9.1)

Chair is required to notify the faculty member that the need for a ‘more complete review’ has been triggered when two successive annual reviews noting uncorrected serious deficiencies occur

The ‘more complete review’ occurs during the following year

A ‘more complete review’ is similar to a mid-probationary review with the goal of identifying strengths and weaknesses. A ‘specific remedial program’ shall be developed if any serious deficiencies are found

Remedial program shall include criteria and timelines

4.9.7 More Complete Reviews

If in the judgment of the chair the annual review for any faculty members shows a serious deficiency that has continued for two consecutive years, the chair shall inform the faculty member. One of two possible courses of action shall follow:

  1. The faculty member may request that the chair submit his or her findings to the other tenured faculty members for consideration in a more complete review during the following year, or
  2. If the faculty member does not request the review, the chair may initiate such a review with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the department.

The more complete review shall be similar to the mid-probationary review described in the Faculty Handbook, with the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses. This review shall be undertaken by the chair with a committee of at least three tenured faculty members chosen by the tenured faculty. If they find that the faculty member’s performance is not seriously deficient, the member shall be so informed and a statement of the decision placed in the file. If serious deficiency is found, a specific remedial program shall be developed in consultation with the faculty member, including procedures, criteria for evaluating progress, and a reasonable timetable. The results of the program shall be reported by the chair to the dean. If the dean concludes, after consulting the college promotion and tenure committee, or other advisory committee, if any, that serious deficiencies persist, he or she shall so inform the Provost/VPHS.

Regardless of whether the faculty member accepts the terms of the remedial program, and a reasonable period of time their subsequent performance will be assessed (4.9.8)

The results of the remedial program shall be reported to the Dean (4.9.7)

If Dean concludes the remedial program failed to cure the deficienc(ies), the Dean shall inform the Provost/VCHSC (4.9.7)

4.9.8 Enhancement Programs

Whether or not a tenured faculty member accepts a recommendation to participate in a teaching or scholarly work enhancement program, and whether or not the member performs well in the program, he or she shall be judged, after a reasonable period of time, on subsequent classroom and scholarly work performance.

A faculty member can request a ‘more complete review’ if they feels that two or more consecutive annual reviews have inaccurately conveyed their accomplishments

4.9.9 Individual Request for Review

Any faculty member who feels that two or more consecutive annual reviews have inaccurately conveyed his or her professional accomplishments or have contained other substantial deficiencies shall have the option of initiating the more complete review described above.

A ‘more complete review’ can occur no more frequently than every 5 years

4.9.10 Frequency of Review

The more complete review shall not be initiated for any faculty member more frequently than once every five years.