Home » About » ESGC At A Glance » Policies & Procedures » Post-Tenure Review

Adopted by Faculty Senate 1/20/17; 9/22/23
Adopted by President 6/17/17, 9/22/23 

Institutional policies align with the Board of Regents (BOR) Policy Manual: 8.3 Additional Policies for Faculty and the University System of Georgia (USG) Academic Affairs Handbook: Section 4.0: Academic Personnel.

Policy Overview 

East Georgia State College has adopted the following policy for Post-Tenure Review in accordance with section 4.7 of the Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Handbook and section 8.3.5.4 of the Board of Regents Policy Manual. This policy was developed in consultation with faculty and has been approved by the APCC Committee and Faculty Senate and supports Academic Freedom. In keeping with the mission of East Georgia State College, each faculty member will be evaluated according to the following criteria, as defined in the Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure and Promotion.

          1. teaching;
          2. student success activities;
          3. research/scholarship/creative activity or academic achievement;
          4. service to the institution, profession, and/or community; and
          5. continuous professional growth.

Post-tenure dossiers must demonstrate noteworthy achievement in teaching and at least one other of the five criteria; meeting or exceeding expectations in two other criteria is required; activity in a fifth criteria is preferred. Faculty whose primary responsibility is not teaching must demonstrate excellence in their primary area of responsibility.

Timeline 

According to policies of the Board of Regents, faculty will undergo review every five years after being granted tenure. The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs will inform faculty members that they are beginning their year of review by the start of the fall semester. When a faculty member submits a promotion dossier (Associate/Full Professor), the promotion dossier takes the place of the post-tenure review, so that the post-tenure timeline is restarted; likewise, the post-tenure timeline will be restarted for tenured faculty granted an academic leadership promotion (e.g. Department Chair, Associate Vice President, Vice President). Tenured faculty will not be required to submit two dossiers within five years, except for those who fail to pass post-tenure review or are forced into corrective post-tenure review. Faculty members who refuse to submit a post-tenure review dossier must submit a signed letter of intent to retire or resign within two years. If the faculty member retracts the letter of intent to retire or resign, the post-tenure timeline will be re-established as without interruption. 

Early Post-Tenure Review

A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual 5-year cycle.  Early post-tenure reviews should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since they were last evaluated for tenure or a previous post-tenure review, whichever was most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next post-tenure review will be five years from the voluntary post-tenure review date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the 5-year post-tenure review date remains in place.

Interruptions to the Post-Tenure Review Timeline

Faculty may request a pause of the post-tenure timeline in situations, such as extended illness, that prevent full engagement in the areas of evaluation. Requests to pause the post-tenure timeline must be made to the Associate Vice President for Academics at the time such situation arises.

Post-Tenure Review Committee

Post-tenure dossiers will be reviewed by the Post Tenure Review Committee. During the fall workshop, the faculty of each Department will elect a committee of tenured faculty to serve on a post-tenure review committee (excluding the Department Chairs, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the faculty member(s) being reviewed). The review committee will elect its chair and must have five members. If the applicant’s academic area has fewer than five qualified faculty members for a review committee, the qualified faculty shall select appropriate faculty members (faculty from other academic areas who meet tenure and rank qualifications) to complete a committee of five. Faculty may be excused from serving on a post-tenure review committee at the discretion of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs for reasons including but not limited to a heavy teaching load, service on one or more simultaneous review committees, or a conflict of interest.

Administration/Dossier 

Post–tenure dossiers are due by March 1st (or the next business day if March 1st falls on weekend) of the review year; the faculty member under review will submit their dossier to their Department Chair who will review the dossier, add a letter of evaluation, and submit the dossier to the chair of the review committee. Dossiers should be composed of the elements arranged and numbered as below:

        1. A current curriculum vitae covering the previous five years since the last tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.
        2. Annual reports since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review. 
        3. Annual supervisory evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review. 
        4. A professional self-appraisal statement that reflects on accomplishments and contributions during the period under review, especially those that may not be included in or addressed by annual reports and supervisory evaluations, and projects a two-year growth and development plan. The statement should address each of the five criteria for post-tenure review, especially any shift of emphasis with regard to the criteria.
        5. Student evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review.
        6. Any additional information that is relevant to the post-tenure review. [Optional]

Faculty members who have received at least four satisfactory supervisory evaluations over the five-year review period are allowed to submit an abbreviated dossier instead of the standard dossier described above. The abbreviated dossier will consist of a letter from their Department Chair attesting to their professional performance over the past five years, annual supervisory evaluations since the last award of tenure or post-tenure review, a current curriculum vitae, and a professional self-appraisal statement.

If, after examining the dossier, the review committee feels there are significant omissions, the faculty member will be informed and given the opportunity to fill in the missing data and documentation per a timeline established by the committee.

Evaluation

Since East Georgia State College is an access institution that grants primarily associates degrees, faculty must direct a large portion of their professional time and energies to instruction and other student success activities. Therefore, in keeping with the college mission, service, professional development, and academic achievement should be broadly defined. Refer to the Annual Evaluation of Faculty Policy and Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure and Promotion for further guidance.

The review committee will use the evaluation Likert scale as presented in the Evaluation of Faculty - Policies and Procedures document.

1 -  Does Not Meet Expectations
2 - Needs Improvement
3 - Meets Expectations
4 - Exceeds Expectations
5 - Exemplary

Noteworthy achievement as referenced in BOR Policy 8.3.7.3 is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert Scale.  Deficient and unsatisfactory as referenced throughout this document is reflective of a 1 or a 2 on the Likert Scale.

Each member of the Post-tenure Review Committee will review the dossier and provide a provide a rating for each evaluation category using the Likert scale. The scores will be averaged across the committee and rounded up or down according to standard base-ten math. For example, an average ranging from 2.5-2.9 will be recorded as a score of 3; an average ranging from 2.0-2.4 will be recorded as a score of 2.  If the post-tenure scores fall short of the minimum prescribed standard - two scores of 4 (one of which must be teaching) and one score of 3 - the committee must determine through further examination whether the faculty member has, over the course of five-years, met the standard for successful post-tenure review. By majority vote, the review committee will declare the faculty member’s performance satisfactory or unsatisfactory and report their decision to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.

The committee report must identify areas of strength and weakness and justify their evaluation of them. For example, the committee might argue that an apparent weakness in professional development resulted from a faculty member scoring well in one category of professional development but less well in other categories of professional development. The committee might argue that a score of 3 in any area of professional development satisfies the post-tenure standard for a score of 3 in professional development.

If the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs agrees with the decision of the review committee, he or she will notify the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the President that the review has been successfully completed. If the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs does not agree with the decision of the review committee, he or she will give his or her points of disagreement to the review committee in writing and ask that they reconsider the faculty member's dossier. The final decision will rest with the review committee. The review committee will notify the faculty member, the Department Chair, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, and President of the final decision no later than the last day of the spring semester during which the dossier was submitted.

Rewards 

A successful post-tenure review may be acknowledged with a merit pay increases and priority consideration for future professional development opportunities.

Performance Improvement Plan

In the event of a post-tenure review that does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the Department Chair and faculty member will work together to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the post-tenure review committee based around the deficiencies found by the committee.

Consistent with the developmental intent of the post-tenure review, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. 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.  The PIP must be approved by the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. The Post-Tenure Review Committee will assess the PIP at formal meetings held no less than twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters.  The assessment of the PIP will take the place of that year’s annual review.

Failure to successfully remediate the identified deficiencies, or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation, within one year subjects the faculty member to disciplinary actions up to and including, but not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, and tenure revocation and dismissal. The institution will follow appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal the final assessment of their PIP and the resulting remedial actions as outlined below.

The appropriate Department Chair must meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of post-tenure review. Each faculty member must receive a letter documenting the summary of the findings of the post-tenure review.  In the event of an unsuccessful post-tenure review, the letter must also include next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. The faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that will be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the Department Chair.

If the faculty member successfully completes the performance improvement plan, then the faculty member’s next post-tenure review will take place on the regular five-year schedule. 

If the faculty member fails to make sufficient progress in performance, then the institution shall take appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. The President will make the final determination on behalf of the institution regarding appropriate remedial action.

Corrective Post Tenure Review

A tenured faculty member who receives a Likert scale rating of 1 or 2 in any of the evaluation criteria for two consecutive annual evaluations will participate in a corrective post-tenure review. Note that the deficiency does not have to be in the same area; but could be a different area from one year to the next. This review will be initiated prior to the normally scheduled five-year review. The faculty member will follow the institution's guidelines and procedures for post tenure review.  If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock.  If the outcome of a corrective post tenure review does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the same process for an unsuccessful post-tenure review will be followed. The appropriate due-process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal a corrective post-tenure review is outlined below.

Due Process Following an Unsuccessful Post-Tenure Review or an Unsuccessful Corrective Post-Tenure Review

If, after conducting a final review of appropriate materials and allowing the faculty member an opportunity to be heard at the conclusion of the performance improvement plan, the Department Chair determines that the faculty member has failed to make sufficient progress in performance as outlined in the performance improvement plan (or has refused to engage reasonably in the process), the Department Chair will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. 

Upon request by the faculty member, the post-tenure review committee will review the materials that attest to performance improvement plan progress and the proposed remedial action and make their recommendation.  If the faculty member does not request a review by the PTR committee, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will make the final determination on remedial action. If the faculty member does want to request a review by the PTR committee, the faculty member has 10 calendar days from receiving the recommendations of the Department Chair to request the PTR committee review. If received within 10 calendar days, the request will be granted.

The following due process will be followed for the PTR Committee review:

        1. The PTR committee will review the recommendation of the Department Chair. The PTR committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary. The recommendation of the PTR committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The PTR committee will issue its recommendation to the Provost and the faculty member within 20 calendar days of the request for review by the faculty member.
        2. Within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the PTR committee, the Provost shall send an official letter to the faculty member notifying him or her of the remedial action.

The Provost’s remedial action may include, but not be limited to, suspension of pay, salary reduction, revocation of tenure, and separation from employment. If the remedial action is separation from employment, and only in that case, the faculty member has the right to request a final faculty hearing for the purpose of confirming that due process was followed in reaching the decision of separation of employment. If the faculty member requests a formal hearing within 5 calendar days of receiving the Provost’s official letter, the Provost will grant that request.

The following procedures will be followed for the final faculty hearing:

      1. If the institution does not have a final dismissal hearing committee as a standing committee of its faculty’s legislative body, a PTR final dismissal faculty hearing should be formed within 5 calendar days of receiving the faculty member’s request and consist of not fewer than three, but not more than five, impartial faculty members appointed by the executive committee (or its equivalent) of the highest legislative body of the faculty, from among the members of the entire faculty of the institution. Members of the hearing committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the faculty. The hearing committee should elect a chair from its membership. The entire process of the hearing and written recommendation from the final hearing committee to the President must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date of the faculty member’s request for a hearing.
      2. The hearing committee will notify the faculty member recommended for dismissal in writing at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
      3. Prior to the hearing, the hearing committee will review all documentation relevant to the post-tenure review of the faculty member.
      4. During the hearing, the faculty member should have the opportunity to make a statement to the committee, respond to the documentation reviewed by the committee, and answer any questions from the committee.
      5. The President and the faculty member shall be notified in writing of the recommendation of the hearing committee within 10 calendar days of the hearing, whether that recommendation be dismissal or any penalty less than dismissal, providing supporting reasons.
      6. The President may or may not follow the recommendation of the committee, but, within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation, the President should notify the faculty member and the hearing committee regarding the decision and the supporting reasons. The President should also notify the faculty member of the discretionary review process as provided for in the Board of Regents Policy: BOR Policy 6.26 Application for Discretionary Review.
      7. If the remedial action taken by the President is dismissal, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in the faculty member’s current role, with the President outlining the faculty assignments to be completed prior to the dismissal date.

Academic Administrators

Academic administrators who hold faculty rank and are tenured at the institution will receive an annual review by their appropriate supervisor and will undergo a comprehensive evaluation, including a 360° feedback assessment every five years (hereafter “five-year review”). Annual and five-year reviews will address traditional faculty activities (teaching, student success, research/scholarship, service, and professional growth) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator.

Administrative faculty contracts should designate percentage of workload comprised of faculty duties; in annual and five-year reviews, performance of faculty activities will be weighted according to the percentages designated by contract.

The five-year evaluation will include a post-tenure review according to institutional policy and in consideration of the distribution of duties outlined in the administrative faculty contract.  Administrative faculty will have full recourse to remediation, improvement, and appeals processes within the Post-Tenure Review policy. Unsuccessful post-tenure review may result in loss of faculty rank and tenure.