|
II - 1.19(A) - UMB POLICY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TENURED FACULTY
(Approved by the President, November 1, 1999; approved
by the Chancellor, November 15, 1999)
The purpose of the comprehensive review of tenured faculty is
to promote the continuing professional development of the
faculty, to improve academic programs, and to formally
recognize long-term superior performance. The fundamental
premise of this policy is that tenured members of the faculty
are productive professionals who are committed to teaching,
scholarship, and service to local, state, national, and
international communities. Comprehensive review of tenured
faculty shall be part of larger faculty development programs
designed to enhance the professional abilities of faculty as
teachers, scholars, and members of the academic community.
Each tenured faculty member shall have a comprehensive review,
at least once every five years, that shall assess performance
in teaching, research/scholarship, service, and clinical
activities (as applicable) over the preceding five years or
period since the last comprehensive review. The specific
policies and procedures for comprehensive review of tenured
faculty members shall be consistent with the preservation of
academic freedom. The review shall be based upon the
performance expectations previously established for the
individual faculty member in accordance with USM and UMB
policies on faculty workload and responsibilities and shall
be conducted in light of the mission of the department,
school, and institution. The comprehensive review shall be
a collegial assessment consistent with the principles of
peer review and shall comply fully with Board of Regents
Policy II-1.19, "University System of Maryland Policy on
the Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty." The results
of the comprehensive review shall be conveyed to the
faculty member and, as applicable, may be considered in
making employment-related decisions, e.g., promotion
and merit pay increases.
Each dean is delegated the responsibility for monitoring
the comprehensive review of the tenured faculty process
in the dean's School and for ensuring that the reviews
conducted are in compliance with the Board of Regents
requirements and the procedures contained in this policy.
The dean may delegate the responsibility for implementation
of the review process to an appropriate senior
academic administrator. Each School shall develop written
procedures for the comprehensive review of faculty, which
must be approved by the dean and the Vice President for
Academic Affairs, who will keep a copy of the current
procedures on file. Each School's written procedures shall
be forwarded to the Chancellor for formal review and
approval.
I. SCHEDULE
- A. Each tenured faculty member shall be reviewed during
the 12-month period following each anniversary that is a
multiple of five of the receipt of tenure or subsequent
promotion at the University of Maryland.
- B. Separate reviews with fully defined processes for
consideration for promotion in rank or for review of
academic administrators may be substituted for this
review at appropriate times in a faculty member's career.
In those cases, the applicable review policies shall take
precedence.
- C. In cases where a tenured faculty member receives two
consecutive annual reviews (see UMB II-1.25, section
VI) indicating material deficiency in meeting
expectations, the faculty member shall undergo a
comprehensive review during the following year. This
review shall be in addition to the reviews otherwise
required by this policy.
II. REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Each School shall develop specific criteria to be used in
the review. The criteria should reflect the mission of the
School and be sufficiently flexible to accommodate
faculty with different responsibilities. B. Each School shall develop its peer review process in
conformity with USM and UMB policies for
comprehensive review.
1. Peer review committees shall consist of a
minimum of three tenured faculty members. If there
are insufficient qualified tenured faculty members to
constitute a committee, members may be drawn
from tenured faculty members in relevant
disciplines in other departments or other Schools.
2. The department chair may not serve as part of the
peer review group, but shall make an independent
evaluation of the faculty member. 3. A faculty member may not participate in the
comprehensive review of any tenured faculty
member in the year in which he/she is subject to
review. 4. Reviewers external to the School will not normally
be a part of the review process. Each School's
procedures shall indicate whether external
reviewers will be part of the process and how they
will be selected.
C. Each School shall specify the sources of information
upon which the review will be based. At a minimum,
these sources will include:
1. A written report prepared by the faculty member
under review which includes a curriculum vitae and
which addresses for the period under review the
faculty member's:
a. teaching, advising, and other educational
activities; b. scholarly research or creative activities
c. documented service activities to the university,
government, and professional community; d. where applicable, clinical practice activities.
2. A statement by the appropriate School official of
the performance expectations for the faculty
member for the period of review. 3. An evaluation of the faculty member's performance
by the department chair in Schools where faculty
are organized in departments. In Schools
without departments, the School procedures shall
identify an academic official designated by the dean
to perform this function. The evaluation should
include a summary of the annual reviews conducted
during the period for which the faculty member is
being evaluated and an assessment of the faculty
member's written report.
D. The peer review committee shall prepare a written
evaluation report based on the documentation
submitted. The performance of the faculty member shall
be evaluated as either meeting expectations or not
meeting expectations. E. A copy of the evaluation report shall be provided to the
faculty member, who shall have an opportunity to
submit a written response.
F. The documentation of the review, consisting, at a
minimum, of the faculty member's report, the statement
of expectations, the department chair's evaluation
(in Schools where faculty are organized in
departments), the peer review committee's report, and
the faculty member's response, if any, shall be
forwarded to the dean. If the review committee and the
faculty member agree in their evaluation, the dean shall
report the findings as specified in section IV.A. If a
faculty member does not agree with the evaluation, the
dean shall make the final decision, based on the record,
about whether the faculty member has met
expectations. The faculty member shall be provided with
a copy of the dean's report and may submit a written
response to be included in the file. G. The evaluation report, any written response by the
faculty member, and the development plan, if required,
shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel
file in the Dean's Office in the School together with the
documents that played a substantive role in the review
(other than documents such as publications that are
readily accessible elsewhere) and a record of any
action taken as a result of the review. H. This comprehensive review process may not be
substituted for the USM and UMB policies and
procedures relating to the termination of tenured
appointments, which are in no way amended by this
policy. Unsatisfactory comprehensive reviews do
not, of themselves, constitute grounds for termination of
tenured appointments.
III. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. If the faculty member's performance is evaluated as not
meeting expectations, a specific development plan shall
be prepared by the department chair or, in Schools
where faculty are not organized in departments, by the
dean or designee, in consultation with the faculty
member. This plan shall include a procedure for
evaluation of progress. The plan shall be signed by the
faculty member, the department chair (if applicable), and
the dean.
B. Progress in meeting the goals of the development plan
shall be assessed during a follow-up review beginning
one year after the implementation of the development
plan. The follow-up review may be deferred for one year
if the dean determines that there has been insufficient
time for significant progress under the plan.
IV. REPORTS
A. The dean shall report to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs, by July 31 of each year, the names of all faculty
members for whom a comprehensive review was
conducted during the preceding year, indicating whether
the faculty member's performance was considered to
meet expectations. For each faculty member whose
performance was considered not to meet expectations,
the dean shall indicate that a development plan has
been instituted as required by Section III.A of this policy. B. If, as a consequence of the follow-up review, a faculty
member is found not to be making sufficient
improvement in performance in accordance with the
development plan, a copy of the comprehensive review
and the report of the follow-up review shall be forwarded
to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
|
