Skip to content Skip to main navigation Report an accessibility issue

Procedures for Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review

1. Objectives of the Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (EPPR)

The EPPR policy and procedures provide a thorough, fair, and transparent process for:

  • coordinating peer evaluation of a tenured faculty member’s performance for the five years immediately preceding EPPR;
  • facilitating cooperation between a tenured faculty member and administrators in identifying effective strategies to assist the faculty member in meeting the expectations for the relevant discipline and academic rank; and
  • distinguishing those unusual situations in which (despite efforts to facilitate improvement) the faculty member’s performance fails to satisfy expectations for the discipline and academic rank, and which may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including proceedings to consider termination of tenure.

2. Review by the Chief Academic Officer To Determine Whether EPPR is Warranted

Irrespective of other campus processes or practices through which an annual performance review is finalized, the chief academic officer must review any annual performance evaluation that would result in EPPR.

  • If the chief academic officer overrules the performance rating and determines that EPPR is not warranted, the faculty member may choose to proceed with EPPR.
  • If the chief academic officer determines that an EPPR is warranted, the chief academic officer should meet promptly with the faculty member to explain the decision and review the EPPR process. The chief academic officer must also provide written notice of this decision (copied to the department head, dean, and Faculty Senate president) that an EPPR will be conducted.

3. Appointment of the Peer Review Committee

Within 45 days of the written notice that an EPPR will be conducted, the chief academic officer (or designee) must appoint the peer review committee in the manner described below and meet with the committee to review its charge.

Every member of the peer review committee must be tenured; hold the same or higher academic rank as the faculty member undergoing review; and have some familiarity with the relevant performance expectations for faculty in that discipline and academic rank. In the unusual event that an appropriate peer review committee cannot be assembled using these criteria, the chief academic officer must provide to the faculty member a written explanation for the deviation from the prescribed criteria.

Consistent with the criteria for service stated above, the chief academic officer (or designee) must appoint the peer review committee using the following nomination process:

  • the dean nominates one faculty member to serve both as chair and as a voting member of the peer review committee; when a faculty member has a split appointment across colleges, the dean of the college in which the faculty member holds a majority appointment (that is, the faculty member’s tenure unit) will provide the nomination;
  • the department head or chair nominates three faculty members who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed;
  • the faculty member undergoing review nominates three faculty members who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed;
  • the Faculty Senate president nominates three faculty members who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed; and
  • the college promotion and tenure committee or the intercollegiate promotion and tenure committee for the colleges without departments nominates three actively serving members who meet the criteria above, from whom one committee member is appointed.

To ensure diverse perspectives among members of the peer review committee, the chief academic officer should solicit nominations from faculty serving in different roles. When feasible, nominations to the peer review committee should include:

  • faculty members whose tenure lies in the same department as the faculty member undergoing review, or, in a small department, faculty members who hold tenure in the same college as the faculty member undergoing review;
  • at least one faculty member whose tenure resides in a different department than the faculty member undergoing review; and
  • at least one faculty member who currently serves (or who served during the most recent cycle) on a college promotion and tenure review committee or an intercollegiate promotion and tenure committee.

4. Collection of Records for Review by the Peer Review Committee

The chief academic officer (or designee) must collect the following records with respect to the faculty member under review:

  • all annual performance reviews for the past five annual performance review cycles, including materials submitted by the faculty member (or an administrator) or developed as part of the evaluation process;
  • written performance expectations, which may have been established in the past five annual performance reviews, in department or college bylaws, in the Faculty Handbook, or in Board of Trustees, fiscal, human resources, research, safety, or information technology policies or procedures; and
  • any work assignments, goals, or other plans (however identified) that were described in previous performance evaluations during the review period.

The faculty member undergoing review may submit additional written materials relevant to the review period for the committee’s consideration. Such materials must be submitted to the chief academic officer (or designee) for distribution to the committee. The peer review committee may also request that the chief academic officer (or designee) collect and provide additional written materials. Reasonable requests for relevant records will be honored when permitted by law and University policy.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations by the Peer Review Committee

The peer review committee is charged to review the available performance information and to conclude (based on that information) whether or not performance during the review period has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. This review should be completed (and written report completed) within 75 days from the chief academic officer’s charge to the peer review committee.

Interviews – The peer review committee may conduct a reasonable number of interviews in person or electronically. If the committee chooses to conduct interviews, both the faculty member undergoing review and the administrator who assigned the negative rating(s) must be given the opportunity to be interviewed. All interviews must be conducted separately. Unavailability of the faculty member or administrator for an interview does not constitute grounds for an extension of time to complete the EPPR.

Voting – Voting must be conducted by anonymous ballots. No member of the committee may abstain or recuse him/herself from voting. All conclusions and recommendations are adopted upon the vote of a simple majority, except a recommendation that the Chancellor initiate tenure termination proceedings, which requires the support of at least four members of the peer review committee.

  1. Conclusions Regarding Performance and Recommended Action(s). All conclusions and recommendations of the peer review committee must be made in writing, with copies to all parties (faculty member, department head, dean(s), and chief academic officer).  Minority reports may be attached.  While the committee is not permitted to share written materials directly with the Faculty Senate, the faculty member under review remains free to do so.

Based on the judgment of its members, the peer review committee must conclude either:

    1. that the performance satisfies the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank; or
    2. that the performance does not satisfy the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank.  In such a case, the committee must recommend either:
      • that an EPPR improvement plan be developed and implemented; or
      • by a vote of at least four committee members, that the Chancellor should initiate proceedings to consider termination of tenure based on Adequate Cause (Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service) as defined in Chapter 3 of this handbook and section III.J. of the Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure and the procedures detailed in Appendix B or C of the same.
  1. Review and Responses to the Peer Review Committee’s Report. The committee’s written conclusions and recommendations must be distributed to the faculty member, department head, and dean(s) for simultaneous review, who must submit any written responses to the chief academic officer within 14 days.
  2. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Chief Academic Officer. The chief academic officer will review the committee’s report and all timely written responses and will make an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance. Within 28 days of the distribution of the peer review committee’s report (14 days for review and comment by others and 14 days for independent review by the chief academic officer), the chief academic officer must provide to the Chancellor copies of the committee’s report, all timely responses to the report, and any additional conclusions or recommendations based on the chief academic officer’s independent review of the material. The entire report, including any materials added by the faculty member, department head, dean(s), and chief academic officer, must be copied to the faculty member, peer review committee, department head, and dean(s).

6. Review and Action by the Chancellor

The Chancellor will make an independent evaluation of the faculty member’s performance and must provide to the faculty member (copied to the department head, dean(s), chief academic officer, and members of the peer review committee) a written explanation of the rationale for any conclusions, decisions, or further actions to be taken.

If the Chancellor concludes that the performance under review has satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank, the EPPR process is concluded. In doing so, the Chancellor may overrule previous performance ratings and may adjust the faculty member’s salary to reflect any across-the-board raises.

If the Chancellor concludes that the performance under review does not satisfy the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank, the Chancellor may take further action as deemed appropriate. For example (without limitation):

  • The Chancellor may require that an EPPR improvement plan be implemented for a period of up to 18 months, as further described below.
  • The Chancellor may propose disciplinary action, up to and including proceedings to consider tenure termination based on Adequate Cause (Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service) as defined in Chapter 3 of this handbook and section III.J. of the Board of Trustees Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure and the procedures detailed in Appendix B or C of the same.

7. Development and Implementation of an Improvement Plan (When Applicable)

  1. Written Notice to All Parties. If the Chancellor concludes that an EPPR improvement plan should be developed, the Chancellor must promptly instruct the chief academic officer to develop and implement an improvement plan using the process detailed below. The chief academic officer must promptly notify in writing the faculty member under review that the Chancellor has determined that an EPPR improvement plan must be implemented (with copies to the department head, dean(s), and peer review committee).  Only one improvement plan may be offered to a faculty member during a given EPPR process; however, the EPPR process may be implemented more than once during a faculty member’s career. An EPPR improvement plan may extend no more than 18 months from the time it is implemented by the chief academic officer.
  2. Development of the EPPR Improvement Plan. The department head is responsible for drafting the EPPR improvement plan in close collaboration with the peer review committee, dean(s), and chief academic officer. In drafting the improvement plan, the department head should attempt to address any written concerns raised by the faculty member during the relevant annual review cycles.

Within 30 days of notice that an improvement plan must be developed, the department head is expected to produce a plan supported by the dean(s), chief academic officer, and a majority of the peer review committee. Once such an improvement plan is developed, the chief academic officer shall forward the proposed plan to the faculty member.

If the department head fails to produce within 30 days an improvement plan supported by the chief academic officer, dean(s), and majority of the peer review committee, then the committee must assume responsibility for drafting an improvement plan. In such a case, the committee must complete the plan within 14 additional days. Upon approval by a majority of the peer review committee, the proposed plan must be provided to the dean(s) and chief academic officer for review and approval.

In either case, the chief academic officer must ensure that an improvement plan acceptable to the chief academic officer, dean(s), and majority of the peer review committee is developed and must send the proposed plan to the faculty member for review and response. The faculty member under review must be given one opportunity to review and respond to the proposed improvement plan (within 14 days). The peer review committee must review and consider the faculty member’s response, including any modifications requested by the faculty member (within another 14 days). In its discretion, the peer review committee may revise the proposed plan after considering the faculty member’s response. The committee must then forward the proposed improvement plan to the chief academic officer for review and implementation (with copies to the dean(s), department head, and faculty member).

  1. Committee Review after an EPPR Improvement Plan. At the end of the time allotted for the EPPR improvement plan, the peer review committee must reconvene to review performance under the plan, and to determine whether or not such performance (in the context of the EPPR review period) has satisfied expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank.  The peer review committee must vote anonymously and provide a written report of its conclusions and recommendations, including majority and minority reports (if applicable), to the faculty member, department head, and dean(s), who may respond in writing within 14 days.

The chief academic officer must review the committee’s report and any timely written responses and must independently evaluate performance under the improvement plan.  The chief academic officer must then submit the reconvened committee’s report, all written responses, and his/her own conclusions and recommendations to the Chancellor, with copies to the faculty member, peer review committee, department head, and dean(s).

  1. Chancellor’s Review and Action after an EPPR Improvement Plan. The Chancellor will make an independent evaluation of the performance under the EPPR improvement plan (in the context of the EPPR review period) and must provide to the faculty member (copied to the department head, dean(s), chief academic officer, and members of the peer review committee) a written explanation of the rationale for any conclusions, decisions, or further actions to be taken.

8. Timeline for Conducting the EPPR

All EPPR deadlines are counted in calendar days rather than business days, except when the last day of the time period falls during a holiday or administrative closure lasting five business days or longer (such as the administrative closure between fall and spring semesters or an extended weather-related closure). The following table summarizes key events in the EPPR process that have deadlines.

Event begins Days Event ends
Written notice from the chief academic officer that EPPR is warranted 45 Chief academic officer charges the peer review committee
Chief academic officer charges the peer review committee 75 Committee report is distributed for review by the faculty member, department head, and dean
Committee report is distributed for review by the faculty member, department head, and dean 14 Faculty member, department head, and dean submit written responses to the chief academic officer
Chief academic officer reviews timely responses to the report and makes an independent evaluation 14 Chief academic officer submits to the Chancellor the committee’s report, all timely responses, and any additional conclusions and recommendations based on the chief academic officer’s independent evaluation
If the Chancellor requires implementation of an EPPR improvement plan, the chief academic officer provides written notice to all parties 30 Department head submits to the chief academic officer a proposed improvement plan supported by the dean, chief academic officer, and a majority of the peer review committee
If the department head fails to produce an improvement plan supported by the dean, chief academic officer, and a majority of the committee, then the peer review committee assumes responsibility for drafting a plan 14 Peer review committee submits the proposed improvement plan to the dean and chief academic officer for review and approval
Upon approval by the chief academic officer, the proposed improvement plan is sent to the faculty member for review 14 Faculty member submits to the peer review committee any written response (including any requested modifications to the improvement plan)
Peer review committee considers the faculty member’s response and may revise the proposed improvement plan 14 Peer review committee submits the proposed improvement plan to the chief academic officer for review and approval
Chief academic officer reviews the proposed plan, responds to the committee as needed, and approves a final improvement plan 14 Chief academic officer sends the approved plan to the faculty member and others for implementation

 On a case-by-case basis, the chief academic officer (or designee) may approve a written request from the peer review committee for an extension of time to complete the initial review. Only one extension may be granted to the peer review committee during a single EPPR, and the chief academic officer (or designee) will determine the length of the extension.

Concurrent Appeals or Grievances – While appeal of an APPR rating (or other procedure) may overlap in time with the five-year review period, the EPPR is purposefully different from the annual performance review process. To the extent provided under this handbook or other campus policies or practices, the faculty member may choose to initiate or maintain an appeal of the most recent APPR rating while EPPR is underway. Any appeal or other process must be conducted without interference or influence from the EPPR, and vice versa. Faculty leaders should take care to ensure the integrity of all procedures by confirming that no person serves in multiple proceedings related to the same faculty member. Except as may be required by law (for example, under regulatory requirements or a judicial order) any such appeal, grievance, or other University process must proceed simultaneously with the EPPR and must have no impact on the timing or procedures described in this policy.

9. Phased Implementation of Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review

The Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review provisions of the Board Policies on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure and the procedures outlined in Appendix E of the same were approved by the Board of Trustees on October 14, 2016 and became effective on July 1, 2017. Any faculty member who was engaged in a Cumulative Performance Review (CPR) on October 14, 2016 must complete the CPR process under the then-applicable CPR policy provisions. Otherwise, the following implementation schedule applies.

Date of annual performance review meeting Overall rating of Needs Improvement (or campus equivalent) Overall rating of Unsatisfactory (or campus equivalent)
On or before June 30, 2017 CPR policy applies CPR policy applies
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Performance ratings are reviewed by the chief academic officer, who decides whether CPR or EPPR should be applied. EPPR policy applies
July 1, 2018 or later EPPR policy applies EPPR policy applies