Principles

1.  The Faculty of Mississippi University for Women recognize as a matter of professional responsibility the importance of all tenured faculty continuing to develop productively in teaching, research, and service.  Accordingly, evaluation of the teaching, research and  service of a tenured faculty member does not cease with the granting of tenure and the presumption of merit that tenure entails, but continues with annual review of all components of a tenured faculty member’s  assignment which are used for the improvement of the tenured faculty and its educational mission.  Post-tenure review at MUW should not be compared to that of any other institution.   Post-tenure review at MUW will depend on the characteristics of MUW; its size, its mission, and its tenured faculty, as well as on the resources that it can bring to bear in the area of tenured faculty development.

2. This procedure is intended for assessing cases in which a tenured faculty member’s level of performance may have decreased over a sustained period and for improving that level of performance.

3. The grant of tenure is the academic community’s chief guarantee of academic freedom. Under no circumstances shall annual review or post-tenure review impinge upon academic freedom.

4.  To gain tenure a faculty member at Mississippi University for Women normally goes through a five to seven year probationary period to establish his/her eligibility for tenure. The lengthy demonstration of competence that precedes the award of tenure is required precisely so that tenured faculty are not recurrently at risk and are afforded the professional autonomy and integrity essential to academic quality.

5.   Nothing in this procedure should be construed as an attempt to alter the contractual relationship between the tenured faculty member and the university or to alter the nature of tenure as traditionally conceived and legally defined in the American academic community.  Nor is this procedure intended as a mechanism for reevaluating or revalidating the grant of tenure. Thus a tenured faculty member cannot be required to remake his or her case for tenure or otherwise to reassume the burden of proof that he or she bore in the original tenure proceedings.

6.  Post-tenure review is not undertaken for the sole purpose of dismissal. Formal, well-settled disciplinary procedures in P.S. 3528 exist for that purpose. Tenured faculty members are subject to termination for (1) financial exigencies, (2) termination or reduction of programs, academic or administrative units as approved by the Board, (3) malfeasance, (4) inefficiency, (5) contumacious conduct, or (6) for cause.   (IHL Policy 403.0104)

7.  Post-tenure review is not intended to discourage controversy, risk-taking, induce self-censorship or in general interfere with the conditions that make innovative teaching,  research, scholarship, service and administration possible.

8. The basic standard for appraisal should be whether the tenured faculty member under review discharges conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately associated with his or her position.

Procedures

Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty
9. The Division Head will conduct annual reviews for all tenured faculty within the Division. When there have been at least three unsatisfactory annual reviews, over a four-year period, the Division Head may ask the Division Promotion, Tenure, and Post Tenure Review Committee (Division Committee) to meet and appraise the tenured faculty member according to the appropriate criteria, including teaching/advising,  scholarship/professional development, and university and community service.

10. The Division Committee will conduct an informal investigation to determine whether there is substantial evidence indicating the need for increased development and productivity. The Division Committee will appraise the tenured faculty member according to the appropriate criteria, and may interview the tenured faculty member, the Division Head, and any other parties whose assistance it considers relevant. The committee will have the same access to university records as is granted to the University Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review Committee (University Committee). The University Committee will be chaired by a member elected by the Committee. Should there be insufficient members within a division for membership on the Division Committee, tenured faculty members from other divisions may be used.

11. If the Division Committee finds that there is not substantial evidence of a  pattern of low performance and productivity or that there is evidence of insufficiently recognized merit, it will report these findings to the Division Head,  to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and to the tenured faculty member.

12.  If the Division Committee finds that there is substantial evidence of a pattern of low performance and productivity, it will meet with the tenured faculty member and the Division Head to formulate a mutually acceptable plan of development to extend over 1-3 years.   The plan will clearly specify the improvement criteria and other arrangements calculated to restimulate or refocus the faculty member’s energies.

13. A copy of the plan of development and the method of evaluation will be filed with the Division Head, the Division Committee, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

14. The Division Committee will monitor the success of the development plan over its planned duration and will render progress reports to the Division Head and Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs each fall and spring semester. At the end of the development plan (or earlier if performance has been raised to a level that satisfies the Division Committee), the Committee will report its conclusions to the Division Head and to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Committee will terminate oversight of the development plan and the faculty member involved.   If the developmental assistance is determined to have been ineffective, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with the policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

15.   If the tenured faculty member does not agree to the plan of improvement or feels that issues of academic freedom are involved, he or she may appeal from the Division Committee to the University Committee which will act in an advisory capacity to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The University Committee will conduct an informal investigation to determine whether there is substantial evidence indicating the need for increased development and productivity. The University Committee will appraise the tenured faculty member according to the appropriate criteria, and may interview the tenured faculty member, the Division Head, and any other parties whose assistance it considers relevant.  The tenured faculty member will receive copies of all recommendations sent to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The University Committee may recommend to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs in writing that (1) there is satisfactory performance and that any proposed development plan should be terminated; (2) there is substantial evidence of low performance and productivity and the development plan may be modified to the satisfaction of the University Committee; or (3) developmental assistance is ineffective or is likely to become ineffective.  The University Committee will explain its actions in writing to the faculty member, the Division Head, the Division Committee and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

16. The University Committee will monitor the success of the development plan, including rendering progress reports each fall and spring semester for the stated period of time.    At the end of the development plan (or earlier if performance has been raised to a level that satisfies the University Committee), the Committee will report its conclusions to the Division Head and to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Committee will terminate oversight of the development plan and the faculty member involved.  If the developmental assistance is determined to have been ineffective, the  Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.

17.  If the faculty member rejects the written improvement plan recommended by the University Committee, the Committee shall report the rejection to the Division Committee, to the Division Head, and to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The faculty member shall have the opportunity to provide written rationale for the rejection.  The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may refer the matter back to the University Committee for further review or may invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with the policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.  The faculty member may appeal the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ recommendation to the Faculty Appeals Committee.

18.  Except when faculty appeals procedures direct that files be available to aggrieved faculty  members, the outcome of evaluations should be confidential, that is, confined to the appropriate division or university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, released otherwise only with the consent of the faculty member.

Post-Tenure Review of Division Heads With Tenure
19.  Division Heads will be subject to annual performance review by faculty members within the Division according to the annual review policy of the University and by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs according to written published criteria.  For purposes of post-tenure review, for tenured faculty members serving as division heads or in other capacities with similar duties, the function of the Division Committee is performed by the University Committee, and the function of the Division Head is performed by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  If the faculty member rejects the written improvement plan recommended by the University Committee, the Committee shall report the rejection to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The faculty member shall have the opportunity to provide written rationale for the rejection.  The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs may refer the matter back to the University Committee for further review or may  invoke sanctions, including recommending dismissal in accordance with the policies of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.  The faculty member may appeal the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs’ recommendation to the Faculty Appeals Committee. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will report to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

Post-Tenure Review of Administrative Officers with Faculty Rank
20.  Administrative Officers with Faculty Rank will be subject to annual performance review according to the annual review policy and by the President according to written published criteria.   So long as the Administrative Officer with Faculty Rank retains his or her position, it will be presumed that Post-Tenure Review is not necessary.  Removal from the position could trigger post-tenure review under the same circumstances as with any other tenured faculty member.
 

Review Date:  10/02/02, 03/23/04 , 09/04