Post tenure review will take place biennially (through the development plan outline below) as a supplement to the yearly Faculty Information Reports ("green sheets"). The following processes are meant to address the concerns of four specific audiences, with differing goals: (1) the faculty member, as an opportunity for self-reflection and continued growth, (2) the University, as an opportunity to affirm achievement and locate areas for improvement, (3) the higher education community, as an opportunity to fulfill requirements for accreditation through on-going review of faculty, (4) and the citizens of the State of Oregon, as an affirmation of continued faculty professionalism in a public university setting.
A written professional development plan will be submitted by the faculty member by the beginning of winter quarter of a review year. The plan should be organized to address the four areas of evaluation (for tenure and promotion) and should be both reflective (what has been accomplished in the past two years of service) and predictive (what will be accomplished in the next two years). The plan should be in a narrative form that provides the context for faculty work and leads the writer into a dialog with the reader (the Dean or Division Chair). The plan should be succinct. ["Two pages" was a frequently mentioned expectation in the course of Assembly debate on the policy.]
Upon receipt of the plan, the Dean or Division Chair will meet with the faculty member during winter or spring term for discussion of the document. (In Arts and Sciences, the document will then be passed from the Division Chair to the Dean for review.) If the Dean notes significant areas of concern in performance, these will be fully articulated in writing and become part of the faculty member's personnel file. The Dean and the faculty member will then jointly develop a one-year plan of improvement that will, if successfully completed, return the faculty member to the biennial development plan review schedule. Any irreconcilable disagreement between the faculty member and the Dean about formation of the plan of improvement or about whether or not it has been successfully completed will initiate the formal post-tenure portfolio process (#2 below) to be completed in the second year.
The formal review process is that identified in the Faculty/Staff Handbook under Promotion, Tenure, and Other Reviews (Chapter VI [B]). After the formal post-tenure portfolio review, the faculty member will rejoin the cycle for biennial development planning until a formal post-tenure portfolio review may become necessary again.
The policy will be implemented over a two-year period. Approximately half the tenured faculty in each School will prepare the professional development plan during each of the two years of implementation. The half of the tenured faculty for whom post-tenure (or tenure) review has been most recent will participate during the second year of the implementation of the new approach. For faculty not currently tenured, the first such review will occur two years after the year in which a faculty member is successfully considered for the award of tenure. Schools will notify affected faculty of their involvement in the process early in the academic year. Schools will maintain records pertinent to the implementation and conduct of this policy. Schools will, on an annual basis, inform the Provost's Office of those faculty for whom the process of biennial plan development and review has been completed, any cases involving preparation of a plan of improvement, and any situations that will result in the step of initiating the formal post-tenure review process. In cases where a plan of improvement has been developed, a copy of that plan will be forwarded to the Provost's Office. The Provost will annually include, as a part of the schedule of academic personnel procedures, dates for completion of the various steps of the biennial post-tenure review process.
Oregon Administrative Rules on Post-Tenure Review (580-021-0140) require that institutional post tenure review procedures "clearly link the level of remuneration to faculty performance"; OUS IMD 4.002 Post Tenure Review further specifies that institutional post-tenure review approaches must include: "a description of the institutional plan for relating post-tenure reviews to the faculty reward system, so that annual salary-adjustment decisions (i.e., increase, no increase, decrease) will reflect the results of performance evaluations."
Eastern Oregon University, in its implementation of the EOU policy on Post-Tenure Review, meets these OUS requirements as follows:
[Responsible for Accuracy: John S. Miller, Provost - Last Verified: 7/28/00]