Policy Number_____
Post-Tenure Review

POST-TENURE REVIEW
1. IHL 403.0103 POST-TENURE REVIEW
     Each institution shall have a post-tenure review process for all tenured
     faculty. Post-tenure review criteria shall be consistent with the institution's
     mission and priorities.

     Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be linked to
     annual review policies and procedures. Institutional post-tenure review
     policies and procedures may require a periodic review of all tenured faculty, a
     review of individual faculty triggered by one or more unsatisfactory annual
     reviews, or a combination of periodic and triggered reviews.

     Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall provide for
     systematic and comprehensive assessments of performance, peer involvement
     in the post-tenure review process, and opportunities for faculty development.
     The policies and procedures shall specify the consequences of unsatisfactory
     performance, including termination of service as provided in Section
     403.0104. The policies and procedures shall provide for appeals by aggrieved
     faculty.

     Institutional post-tenure review policies and procedures shall be filed with the
     Commissioner. The Commissioner shall review the policies and procedures
     for consistency with Board policy and recommend modifications as
     appropriate.

     Each institution shall prepare an annual report of post-tenure reviews. The
     report shall be in a format specified by the Commissioner, and shall be
     submitted to the Board by August 1 for the preceding academic year.
(BT Minutes, 4/2000)

MUW POST TENURE REVIEW

2. Principles
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, service as
well as administration.  Accordingly, evaluation of the teaching, research, service and administrative
skills 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 atenured 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 the
needs and preferences of the tenured faculty, as well as on the resources that it can bring to bear in the
area of tenured faculty development.

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 to 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 inthe 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, (6) for cause. This procedure is not disciplinary and thus is not appropriate for reviewing
cases of alleged malfeasance, inefficiency, contumacious conduct, dismissal for cause, or criminality.

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. This procedure is intended solely for assessing cases in which a tenured faculty member’s  level of
performance may have decreased over a sustained period and for exploring ways in which that level of
performance might be improved by a mutually agreed-on plan of development.

9. This procedure does not contemplate dismissal as a final sanction and thus cannot be used as a
substitute for a separate and formal dismissal procedure. That is found under P.S. 3528. If at any time,
the President believes by substantial evidence that a tenured faculty member is guilty of malfeasance,
inefficiency, contumacious conduct or should be terminated for cause then it is appropriate for the
President to instituteformal dismissal proceedings through P.S. 3528, with full faculty participation,
under the procedure specifically dedicated to the matter of dismissal.

10. This Post-Tenure Review procedure may be activated by the tenured faculty member at the
Divisional level for purposes that they would regard as constructive should they so desire. No negative
consequences or development plan would attach to a tenured faculty member who initiates this
procedure.

11.  The depth of post-tenure review of a tenured  faculty member where pertinent will also depend on
the ability of the institution to support and sustain faculty development.

12. 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, not whether the tenured faculty member meets the current standards for the award
of tenure as those may have changed since the initial granting of tenure.

13. Post-tenure review should  acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing
expectations at different stages of tenured faculty careers.

Procedures
Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty
14. The Division Head will conduct annual reviews for all  tenured faculty within the Division. When
routine review by the Division Head of annualevaluations shows substantial evidence (at least three
years) of the need for increased development and productivity the Division Head may ask the Division
Promotion Tenure and Post Tenure Review Committee to meet and appraise the tenured faculty
member according to the appropriate criteria.

15.  The Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Committee will conduct an informal
investigation to determine whether there is substantial evidence indicating the need for increased
development and productivity . The Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review 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. The Committee will be chaired by a member
elected by the Committee. Should there be insufficient members within a division for membership on
the Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Committee, tenured faculty members from
other divisions may be used.

16. If the Division Promotion Tenure and Post Tenure Review 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 Vice President of Academic Affairs
and to the tenured faculty member.

17. If the Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review 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.

18. This plan should respect academic freedom and professional self-direction, and it
should be sufficiently flexible to allow for subsequent alteration or even its own
abandonment. The standard will be that of good faith on both sidesa commitment to
improvement by the tenured faculty member and to the adequate support of that
improvement by the institutionrather than the literal fulfillment of a set of
non-negotiable demands or rigid expectations, quantitative or otherwise.

19.  Such a plan may include restructuring of the tenured faculty member’s load,
reassignment, retraining, sabbaticals, a leave of absence for study, research and
updating skills, more in-service training opportunities, increased university funds to
the professor for attendance at seminars, increased university funds for joining
professional organizations, for travel to pertinent events, and for research.   There
will be close evaluation of specified weak areas with improvement criteria clearly
specified, or other arrangements calculated to restimulate or refocus the
professor’senergies.

20. A copy of the plan of development and the method of evaluation will be filed with
the Division Head and the Vice President of Academic Affairs.

21. The Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Committee will
monitor the success of the development plan over its planned duration and will render
progress reports to the Division Head  and Vice President of Academic Affairs at least
annually. At the end of the development plan (or earlier if performance has been
raised to a level that satisfies the Division Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure
Review Committee), the committee will report its conclusions to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs and the committee will terminate oversight of the development
plan and the faculty member involved with no adverse consequences.

22.  If the tenured faculty member cannot agree to the plan of improvement or feels
that issues of academic freedom are involved, he or she may appeal from the Division
Promotion Tenure and Post Tenure Review Committee to the University Committee
on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure review which will act in an advisory capacity
to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.  The University Promotion Tenure and
Post-Tenure Review Committee will conduct an informal investigation to determine
whether there is substantial evidence indicating the need for increased development
and productivity. The University Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review
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 Vice President of Academic Affairs.
The University Committee on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review may
recommend  to the Vice President of Academic Affairs in writing that (1) there is
satisfactory performance and that any proposed development plan should be
terminated. (2) that there is substantial  evidence of low performance  and
productivity and  the development plan will be modified to the satisfaction of the
University Committee on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review.  The
University Committee on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review will explain its
actions in writing to the faculty member, the Division Head, the Division Promotion
Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Committee and the Vice President of Academic
Affairs or (3) the University Committee on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure
Review may conclude that developmental assistance is unavailing or is likely to be
unavailing.

23. The University Post-Tenure Review Committee will monitor the final agreement
for the stated period of time for compliance and satisfaction of the requested criteria.

24. If the appeal of the written improvement plan as recommended by the University Committee on
Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review is rejected, the tenured faculty member must either agree
to the plan as presented or the University Committee on Promotion Tenure and Post-Tenure Review
will report that developmental assistance is unavailing or is likely to be unavailing.  The VPAA  may in
his/her discretion  invoke Faculty Appeals Committee peer consideration regarding any contemplated
sanctions.

25. 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 divison or
university persons or bodies and the faculty member being evaluated, released otherwise only at the
discretion or with the consent of the faculty member.

26. Post-Tenure Review of Division Heads With Tenure
Division Heads will be subject to annual performance review by faculty members within the Division
according to the annual review policy and by the Vice President for Academic Affairs according to
written published criteria.  The Division Head evaluations will be reviewed by the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Faculty Senate Executive
Committee upon review of the Division Head evaluations will make written recommendations to the
Vice President for Academic Affairs.  So long as the Division Head retains his/her position it will be
presumed that Post-Tenure Review is not necessary. Removal from the position could trigger
post-tenure review.

27. Post-Tenure Review of Administrative Officers with Faculty Rank.
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 their position it will be presumed that Post-Tenure Review is not necessary.
Removal from the position could trigger post-tenure review.