Effective Date: July 31, 2023
Issuing Authority: Provost
Policy Contact: Vice Provost, provost@mercer.edu, 478-301-2110
Purpose
Post-tenure review is established in support and recognition of the University’s commitment to promoting the continued high-quality teaching, scholarship, and service of its tenured faculty, and thereby enhancing the educational environment for its students and the larger community. Post-tenure reviews do not result in any change in academic rank or tenure status.
Scope
This policy applies to all tenured faculty at Mercer University.
Exclusions
None
Policy Statement
The purpose of a comprehensive post-tenure review is to assure professional accountability to the University mission and community and guide continuing and meaningful faculty development. Assessment of academic contributions consistent with those expected of a tenured faculty member will
- identify individual merit relative to assigned duties and University mission;
- form a basis for determining merit raises, honors, awards, and other types of recognition; and
- refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate.
The post-tenure review shall focus on professional responsibility and development relative to expectations and contributions consistent with that of a tenured faculty member who contributes to the University’s mission. The basis of the post-tenure review is consistent with the tenure criteria as stated in the University faculty handbook. Expectations may vary widely in terms of individual professional responsibilities and are based solely on contractual requirements. Administrative duties are not subject to the post-tenure review.
Full-time, tenured faculty shall undergo a comprehensive post-tenure review within five years of the awarding of tenure and at least once every five years thereafter. Annual performance reviews may inform the post-tenure review process but are not a substitute for a comprehensive post-tenure review. Comprehensive evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as a review for promotion, may be substituted for or combined with the post-tenure review.
The criteria of post-tenure review will be evaluated as exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or does not meet expectations. Each college and school of the University shall establish the criteria and procedures for post-tenure reviews, provided such criteria and procedures are consistent with the policies of the University and approved by the President. The criteria and procedures for post-tenure reviews shall be published in the supplemental handbooks for the respective schools and colleges subject to the following guidelines:
- The review may be waived only for faculty with a signed phased retirement agreement.
- In rare circumstances, the review may be rescheduled with permission from the Dean and Provost. A review may not be conducted within three years of the prior review. No deferral may extend beyond one year from the scheduled review.
- The review period starts with the first full academic year after hire into a tenured position or upon successful completion of a comprehensive review for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.
- Faculty due for a post-tenure review shall receive at least six months’ notice of intent to review.
- For joint positions, the primary department will be the locus of the review unless the faculty member chooses to designate a joint department of equal or greater percentage of time.
- For faculty members performing substantial duties in other departments or programs, the evaluation committee shall consider information from others familiar with the faculty member’s performance outside the department, if provided.
An evaluation regarding post-tenure review shall be reached by the Dean with the advice of a faculty advisory committee. The evaluation of the committee shall be presented to the Dean of the school or college who shall then prepare the evaluation. The evaluation of the Dean shall be provided, in writing, to the faculty member.
By April 1, the Dean shall submit to the Provost a list of faculty deferred or reviewed along with the evaluation rankings and appropriate justifications for faculty who exceed expectations or do not meet expectations.
The faculty member whose performance does not meet expectations in one or more areas shall be placed by the Dean on a developmental support plan within 30 days of receiving the written evaluation. Faculty members who substitute or replace the post- tenure review with a different comprehensive evaluation shall similarly be subject to a developmental support plan provided the outcome of the evaluation is deemed the equivalent of does not meet expectations. The developmental plan is to be established collaboratively by the Dean, the faculty member, and the faculty member’s supervisory chair, program director, or designate. A developmental plan shall respect academic freedom and professional self-direction and shall be flexible enough to allow for subsequent redirection. Establishing a developmental support plan is not a disciplinary action. It is an instrument for committing to specific short-term and long-term professional development goals and strategies. The faculty member shall have the right to provide a written response regarding how the written developmental support plan is formulated, the plan’s content, and any resulting evaluation. The plan will
- Be limited in term to no more than one year for teaching and three years for scholarship and service;
- Include a follow-up schedule with specific dates, benchmarks, and tangible goals for evaluating improved performance;
- Indicate the University resources available to provide appropriate support for the faculty member in achieving the goals of the plan; and
- Indicate who will monitor the implementation of the plan and support the faculty member throughout the process.
The evaluation of the Dean is subject to faculty appeal as specified in the University faculty handbook. If a faculty member believes that the decision of the post-tenure review was based significantly on considerations violative of academic freedom or University policies prohibiting discrimination, the faculty member may file a complaint as outlined in the University faculty handbook.
The Dean, in consultation with the faculty member’s supervisory chair, program director, or designate shall annually assess evidence of improvement as part of the faculty member’s annual faculty report. The developmental support plan may be amended due to such assessments. After the term of the developmental support plan, the faculty member must resubmit for post-tenure review.
The faculty member whose performance does not meet expectations on the post- tenure review that follows the developmental support plan shall be referred to the Provost. The Provost shall establish an administrative review to determine appropriate faculty development, reassignment, and/or sanction up to and including review for termination or dismissal, as outlined in the University faculty handbook. The standard for sanction or dismissal remains that of just cause and is distinct from the post-tenure review. The fact of successive negative reviews does not diminish the obligation of the University to demonstrate just cause in a separate forum, following the procedures outlined in the University faculty handbook. Records from the post-tenure review may be relied upon and are admissible in proceedings pursuant to the University faculty handbook.
Additional Resources
Faculty Handbooks: https://provost.mercer.edu/resources/handbooks/faculty-handbooks/