UTMB HANDBOOK OF OPERATING PROCEDURES

Section 5 Faculty Policies Subject 5.5 Evaluations Policy 5.5.2 Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

03/20/98 -Originated 03/15/01 -Reviewed w/ changes -Reviewed w/o changes Council of Deans -Author

Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

Audience

The information in this document is for use by all tenured faculty.

Policy

In accordance with the “Guidelines for Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty” established by the Board of Regents, all tenured faculty must undergo a comprehensive performance review. These reviews will be conducted by peer review in each of the Schools of Allied Health, Nursing, and Medicine with oversight by the Deans of the respective Schools.

Guidelines

In concert with the principles enunciated by the Board of Regents, and using traditional governance structures, the faculty of each of the Schools has developed an implementation plan appropriate for the School. These plans include the following elements for periodic evaluation: • Evaluation of tenured faculty will continue to be performed annually with a comprehensive periodic evaluation of all tenured faculty performed every six years. The evaluation may not be waived for any tenured faculty member but may be deferred in rare circumstances when the review period will coincide with approved leave, comprehensive review for promotion, or appointment to an endowed position. No deferral of review of an active faculty member may extend beyond one year from the scheduled review. Periods when a faculty member is on leave will not be counted in calculating when the comprehensive evaluation is required. The requirement of periodic review does not imply that individuals with unsatisfactory annual evaluations may not be subject to further review and/or appropriate administrative action. • The evaluation shall include review of the faculty member’s professional responsibilities in teaching, research, service, patient care, and administration. • Reasonable individual notice of at least six months of intent to review will be provided to a faculty member. • The faculty member being evaluated shall submit a resume, including a summary statement of professional accomplishments, and shall submit or arrange for the

Guidelines (cont’d)

submission of annual reports and teaching evaluations. The faculty member may provide copies of a statement of professional goals, a proposed professional development plan, and any other additional materials the faculty member deems appropriate. • Initial evaluation of the faculty member’s performance will be carried out by a peer review panel, but in any event must be reported to the chair (or equivalent) and Dean for review. Evaluation shall include review of the current resume, student evaluations of teaching for the review period, annual reports for the review period, and all materials submitted by the faculty member. • Peer committee members shall be representative of the department/school and will be appointed, on the basis of their objectivity and academic strength, by the Dean pursuant to processes as defined in school policies. The faculty member will be provided with an opportunity to meet with the peer review committee or committees. • Results of the evaluation will be communicated in writing to the faculty member, the department chair, the Dean of the respective school, and the President for review and appropriate action. Possible uses of the information contained in the report include the following: • For individuals found to be performing well, the evaluation may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards, or other forms of performance recognition. • For individuals whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional support, the evaluation may be used to provide such support (e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues/service expectations).

Guidelines (cont’d)

• For individuals found to be performing unsatisfactorily, review to determine if good cause exists for termination under the current Regents’ Rules and Regulations may be considered. All proceedings for termination of tenured faculty on the basis of periodic performance evaluation shall be only for incompetence, neglect of duty or other good cause shown and must be conducted in accordance with the due process procedures of the Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6, including an opportunity for referral of the matter to alternative dispute resolution. Such proceedings must also include a list of specific charges by the President and an opportunity for a hearing before a faculty tribunal. In all such cases, the burden of proof shall be on the institution, and the rights of a faculty member to due process and academic freedom shall be protected.

References

5.5.1, Faculty Evaluations 5.3.3, Named Professorships and Endowed Chairs