¹û¶³´«Ã½

These guidelines are intended to assist candidates in presenting their professional experiences and accomplishments most effectively. If requested by the DPTRC, department head/coordinator, or dean, a candidate, with the approval of the provost, may add materials and documents that may have been incomplete or under review at the time of the original submission.

5.5.4.1 Documentation

The following documentation will be presented in a university electronic portfolio system:

• Cover Sheet
  • Faculty Name
  • Name of department and college
  • Degrees earned
  • Years, dates, and current rank and title in tenure-track position
• Current CV of the five years under review
• Description of activities that were not evaluated during most recent promotion or tenure decision but occurred before the earliest annual review included in the current post-tenure portfolio.
• Letter from primary campus supervisor if other than department head/coordinator.
• Letter(s) of support from colleagues (optional)
• Summary of major accomplishments achieved during the years under review in the categories of teaching, to include activities of student success, research/creative/scholarly endeavors, and service to the University, College, department, profession, and community (up to a total of six pages). Faculty effort and activity level in promoting student success should be included as applicable. For the purposes of post-tenure review, the years under review are the five most recent full calendar years prior to the evaluation
• Previous five annual performance evaluations – annual self-reports with department head’s/coordinator’s evaluations for years under consideration.
• Complete sets of student evaluations with students’ comments from all the years under consideration.
• Brief statement of projected plans for contributions over the next five years.

5.5.4.2 Process

(Dates are provided in section 5.1.)

• Official notification of post-tenure review shall be sent from the dean to the candidate by the second Monday in September, and access to the online portfolio provided. (Example: If the most recent positive promotion or tenure action occurred in August of 2025, the post-tenure notification would occur by the second Monday in September 2029, portfolio would be submitted January of 2030.)
• The departmental post-tenure committee (DPTRC) composition will be determined by the department head/coordinator and access to the online electronic portfolio will be provided to faculty.
• Candidates submit the documentation identified in Section 5.5.4.1. in their electronic portfolio.
• Members of the DPTRC review the candidate's documentation and upload a letter with a satisfactory or unsatisfactory recommendation for post-Tenure to the electronic portfolio. Letters should be signed by all committee members. Signing the letter is an indication of participation in the review process and not an indication of agreement with the recommendation. A count of satisfactory and unsatisfactory votes shall be taken for each candidate.
• The department head/coordinator shall review the candidate's documentation and the DPTRC recommendation and upload a letter with a satisfactory or unsatisfactory recommendation for post-Tenure to the electronic portfolio.
• The college PTRC shall review the candidate's documentation, the DPTRC and department head/coordinator recommendations and upload a letter with a satisfactory or unsatisfactory recommendation for post-Tenure to the electronic portfolio. Letters should be signed by all committee members. Signing the letter is an indication of participation in the review process and not an indication of agreement with the recommendation. A count of satisfactory and unsatisfactory votes shall be taken for each candidate.
• The academic dean shall review the candidate's documentation, the DPTRC, the department head/coordinator, and the college PTRC recommendations and upload a letter with a satisfactory or unsatisfactory recommendation for post-tenure to the electronic portfolio.

5.5.4.2 Actions after Satisfactory Determination

When a candidate receives a satisfactory post-tenure review, the dean, in communication with the department head/coordinator, will recommend a salary enhancement.

In exceptional cases, the college PTR (at their sole discretion) may opt to draft a letter indicating meritorious recognition. Declarations of meritorious performance must be restricted to those few individuals who, on a consistent basis, greatly exceed normal expectations in the execution of their professional responsibilities. This letter will remain in the candidate's personnel file and may be used in future applications for honors, awards, merit raises and support for innovative projects. 

5.5.4.3 Actions after Unsatisfactory Determination

A candidate who receives an unsatisfactory review will work with the department head/coordinator to create a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the reviews of the departmental and college-level PTR committees.  The faculty member should meet with the DPTRC to begin developing the PIP. The PIP will be designed to remedy the specific deficiencies documented in the committees’ review. As the BOR Post Tenure Policy (4.7) states, “The PIP must contain clearly defined goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, available resources and supports, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy. The PIP’s goals or outcomes must be reasonable, achievable with the timeframe, and reflect the essential duties of the faculty member (emphasis added).” For example, for a faculty member found deficient in scholarship, a PIP should not require that faculty member to publish a new journal article within the one-year timeframe since publishing is a multi-year process that can have significant lags outside the control of the faculty member.  Instead, the PIP might require the faculty member to submit a new paper to an appropriate journal within the timeframe. The dean must approve the PIP that will be signed by the candidate, the department head, and the dean.

The department head and dean are jointly responsible for providing necessary support to implement the PIP. This support may include funding for specific activities, rearrangement of duties and commitments, or other necessary resources. The department head’s annual report should address any obstacles to successful completion of the PIP.

After one year, the candidate will undergo a review of the PIP in place of the annual review. During that year the candidate must meet at least twice a semester with the chair and should receive written feedback about progress toward goals. Those meetings should occur in early September, December, February, and late April. The portfolio must include the original PIP, materials supporting the measurement of outcomes delineated in the PIP, and any additional documents that the candidate may wish to include to demonstrate progress toward the goals of the PIP. The department PTR committee should review the PIP portfolio and write a letter indicating that deficiencies are now being met, that substantial progress has been made, or that an unsatisfactory PIP has been demonstrated.

If, after conducting a final review of appropriate materials and allowing the candidate an opportunity to be heard at the conclusion of the performance improvement plan, the department chair and dean determine that the candidate has failed to make sufficient progress in performance as outlined in the PIP (or has refused to engage reasonably in the process), the department chair and dean will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the candidate's deficiencies. These actions could include (i) a letter of reprimand, (ii) university colleagues continuing to work with the individual toward completion of the PIP, (iii) reassignment if the individual will not successfully complete the original PIP, or (iv) other personnel actions, including possible separation of employment, in accordance with the .

Any candidate who receives an unsatisfactory PIP review may appeal that determination.