3.3.6 Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

A. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the periodic (annual and comprehensive) performance evaluation of tenured faculty at the University of Texas at Tyler (U.T. Tyler).

B. Persons Affected

This policy refers to all tenured U.T. Tyler faculty members who have any teaching, research, or service expectations during the period of evaluation regardless of any administrative appointment.
For evaluation of full-time academic administrators, see HOP Sect. 3.3.1: Evaluation of Academic Administrators.

C. Definitions

  1. Tenured Faculty: Any U.T. Tyler faculty who has earned the status of tenure. The University of Texas System Board of Regents’ Rule (Regents’ Rule) 31102 Sec. 2 recognizes tenure as “an important protection of free inquiry, open intellectual and scientific debate, and unfettered criticism of the accepted body of knowledge.”
  2. Professional Responsibilities: U.T. Tyler Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) Sec. 3.2.2 establishes the general duties and workloads of U.T. Tyler faculty. Regents’ Rule 31102 defines professional responsibilities as teaching, research, service, patient care, and administration.

D. Policy and Procedures

  1. Objectives

    The following constitutes the implementation at U. T. Tyler of The University of Texas System Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents Rule 31102 and Texas Education Code Section 51.942 concerning periodic (annual and comprehensive) performance evaluation of tenured faculty. Annual Evaluations will focus “improvement of performance, promotion consideration, and merit salary review” in accordance with Regents’ Rule 30501 Sec. 1. Comprehensive Evaluations will focus on providing guidance for continuing faculty professional development, enhancing professional skills and goals and “revocation of tenure or other appropriate disciplinary action if incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause is determined to be present” in accordance with Texas Education Code Section 51.942. Comprehensive Evaluations “may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards, or other forms of performance recognition” in accordance with Regents’ Rule 31102 Sec. 5.2.i.1.

    U.T. Tyler is dedicated to the retention and compensation of superior faculty members who have earned tenure. The policies and procedures for periodic performance evaluation of tenured faculty are designed to help provide feedback, support, and compensation to faculty continuing to contribute to U.T. Tyler, the community, and their profession. Each of the individual units within U.T. Tyler is required to develop discipline-specific guidelines, rubrics, and schedules for annual and comprehensive evaluation, submit these for approval of the Dean, Provost, and President, and distribute approved documents to the faculty.

  2. Annual Evaluation

    1. Regents’ Rule 31102 Sec. 5.1 defines an Annual Review as one that “should focus on individual merit relative to assigned responsibilities in accordance with Regents’ Rule 30501.” Generally, the U.T. Tyler Annual Evaluation will address faculty performance over no less than two (2) complete academic terms (Fall and Spring). Individual academic units must establish appropriate Annual Evaluation schedules that provide faculty adequate time to review feedback, undergo any necessary professional development, and plan for improvements in assigned responsibilities prior to the start of the next Annual Evaluation period.

      The Annual Evaluation reviews U.T. Tyler tenured faculty member’s performance in their discipline-specific professional responsibilities. Because U.T. Tyler is an academic institution, the professional responsibilities of teaching, research, and service are to be reviewed in each institutional unit.

      Each tenured faculty member will be evaluated in each of these professional responsibilities using the following performance level categories as defined by Regents’ Rule 31102:

      1. “Exceeds Expectations” should reflect a clear and significant level of accomplishment beyond what is normal for the institution, discipline, unit, faculty rank, and type of contractual expectations,
      2. “Meets Expectations” should reflect a clear and significant level of accomplishment normal for the institution, discipline, unit, faculty rank, and type of contractual expectations,
      3. “Does Not Meet Expectations” should indicate a failure beyond what can be considered the normal range of year-to-year variation in performance, but of a character that appears to be subject to correction,
      4. “Unsatisfactory” means failing to meet expectations for the faculty member’s institution, unit, rank, and contractual obligations, or involves professional misconduct, dereliction of duty, or incompetence.
      An overall performance measure for their Annual Evaluation will be based on the combination of performance levels earned within each of the evaluated professional responsibilities. The following institutional guide is suggested as a method for each institutional unit to use when determining an overall measure of a tenured faculty member’s performance in teaching, research, and service:
      5. Exceeds Expectations if the faculty member receives Exceeds Expectations in two or more responsibilities with no measure below a Meets Expectations,
      6. Meets Expectations if the faculty member receives no more than one Does Not Meet Expectations measure and no Unsatisfactory measure in each of the responsibilities,
      7. Does Not Meet Expectations if the faculty member receives two or more Does Not Meet Expectations measures, and
      8. Unsatisfactory if the faculty member receives two or more Unsatisfactory measures.
      If merit increases are to be recommended, the recommendations should be consistent with the annual evaluations.

    2. The Annual Evaluation will be conducted according to individual unit policies consistent with UT Tyler’s Handbook of Operating Procedures 3.3.2. 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 Evaluation 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. The individual institutional unit heads will evaluate all tenured faculty members. Results of this review and any proposed improvement plan must be communicated to the faculty member in person and in writing. The faculty member will have five (5) business days to challenge the review and/or provide further information in writing to the individual unit head. The unit head report and any addition documentation from the faculty member will then be submitted to the dean for review and must be signed by both the unit head and faculty member. The dean will then report results of the review to the provost and president for review and appropriate action.

    3. The Annual Evaluation documents submitted by the tenured faculty must include, but are not limited to, a curriculum vita, including a summary statement of professional accomplishments, summative results from student evaluations during the review period, summative results from any peer evaluations over the review period, and any additional materials submitted by the faculty member that illustrate work performance during the review period.

    4. The Annual Evaluation results must be used to determine merit raises, if any, assist in determining special honors, and/or help identify areas of need for faculty professional development and assistance. If a faculty member receives a measure of “Does Not Meet Expectations,” a professional development plan must be established and documented by the faculty member’s unit head. A second consecutive measure of “Does Not Meet Expectations” in any professional responsibility will result in a measure of “Unsatisfactory” for that review period. A faculty member who received “Unsatisfactory” may be subject to further review and/or to appropriate administrative action. If a faculty member receives a measure of “Unsatisfactory” for two consecutive years, the faculty member will be subject to a comprehensive evaluation or, at the institution’s discretion, be subject to disciplinary action.

  3. Comprehensive Evaluation

    1. The Texas Education Code Sec. 51.942 (c) (1) requires “each faculty member tenured at the institution be subject to a comprehensive performance evaluation process conducted no more often than once every year, but no less often than once every six years, after the date the faculty member was granted tenure or received an academic promotion at the institution.” The Comprehensive Evaluation of tenured faculty performance is designed to review longitudinal competence of tenured faculty as opposed to short-term competence measured by the annual evaluations. Comprehensive evaluations will be conducted every six (6) years following earning tenure, receiving a promotion, and/or following the last comprehensive evaluation. A faculty member being evaluated shall be given reasonable notice of at least six months of the intent to review. The faculty member shall submit a curriculum vita, all six Annual Evaluation reports (inclusive of the sixth year review), a summative report of student evaluations of teaching over the entire 6 year period, a summative report of any peer evaluations of teaching over the entire 6 year period, a summary statement of professional accomplishments, and may provide any additional materials the tenured faculty member wants considered, such as a statement of professional goals and/or a proposed professional development plan.

    2. The Comprehensive Evaluation will review the tenured faculty member’s professional responsibilities in teaching, research, and service using the same evaluation categories as the Annual Evaluation: “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” “Does Not Meet Expectations,” and “Unsatisfactory.” Specifications for the criteria for these levels of performance will be designated at the individual institutional unit level described above in the Annual Evaluation.
    3. The Comprehensive Evaluation will begin with an evaluation conducted by an institutional unit’s tenured faculty peer review committee consisting of either three (3) or five (5) non-administrative peers. This peer evaluation committee must contain tenured faculty members who meet the following criteria:

      1. The committee member is of the same or higher rank than the faculty member being reviewed;

      2. The committee member is within the same college (ideally in the same department or equivalent unit) as the faculty member being reviewed.

      Each member of the peer committee must independently review the tenured faculty member’s materials, discuss these materials amongst the committee, and individually evaluate the faculty member regarding teaching, research, and service. The peer committee will deliberate and establish a final measure for each of the three areas. The criteria described above in 2(a) will be used by the peer committee to establish an overall evaluation measure. A written report of the peer evaluation committee results will be provided to the faculty member and institutional unit head prior to the comprehensive evaluation conducted by the institutional head.

    4. The Comprehensive Evaluation will then be carried out by the individual unit head. Evaluation shall include review of all materials submitted by the faculty member and results from the peer evaluation committee. The unit head shall communicate the result of the review in writing to the faculty member. The faculty member will have five (5) business days to provide a written response to the review, inclusive of additional documentation, if desired. The individual unit head will submit their review in addition to further documentation by the faculty member to the dean complete with signatures of both the faculty member and unit head. The dean will review these documents and provide their review in writing to the provost and president for review and appropriate action.

    5. If the result of the review is unsatisfactory, any of the following may occur: 

      1. If it is determined that a more intensive review of a faculty member is needed, or if the faculty member requests it, the dean, in consultation with the faculty member, shall appoint a peer committee whose members shall be representative of the school or division and who will be appointed on the basis of their objectivity and academic strength. In all schools and divisions, the committee appointed to perform the more intensive review shall be, if possible, comprised of faculty of the same or higher rank as the faculty member being reviewed. The committee may request further information from the faculty member under review. Upon his or her request, the faculty member will be provided with the opportunity to meet with the review committee. The committee shall report its findings within six months of its being constituted. The result of the review will be communicated in writing to the faculty member, the department chair (or equivalent), the dean, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the President for review and appropriate action.

      1. If it is determined that a faculty member would benefit from a remedial plan, a remediation plan, the period of which is not to exceed two years, will be developed. The purpose of the plan is to give the faculty member the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in the faculty member's performance that were identified in the evaluation. If at the end of the plan period it is the opinion of the dean that adequate progress toward correcting the deficiencies has not been made, the matter will be referred to a peer committee for further review as in (a) above.
      2. The faculty member’s duties may be reassigned – the faculty could be given different duties, transferred to another department, transferred to another college, suspended, or terminated. Any consideration regarding reassignment should be reviewed by a committee instituted by the Dean of the college and consisting of at least two tenured members from a college or colleges outside the department. The Faculty Senate will be asked to recommend the two outside members. The Committee’s recommendation must be approved by a majority vote.
    6. Variances
      1. The six (6) year review may not be waived but may be deferred in rare circumstances when the review period will coincide with approved leave, Comprehensive Evaluation for tenure or 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.
      2. Faculty members appointed temporarily to part-time administrative positions, regardless of the percentage time of the appointment, shall be reviewed under this process, with appropriate consideration given to the demands of administrative assignments and their impact on the level of research activity, courses taught and the extent of service contributions. Such individuals will be provided notice at the time of appointment to the temporary administrative position that they will be subject to periodic review.
    7. Monitoring

      The Faculty Senate is charged with monitoring this performance review process and with reporting its findings annually to the faculty and the U. T. Tyler administration. If its findings warrant, the Faculty Senate may recommend revisions of the procedures for faculty review at U. T. Tyler, the U. T. System Guidelines for Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, or both.

    8. Grievances

      A faculty member may grieve the Annual Evaluation or periodic evaluation to the extent authorized in the "Faculty Grievance Procedure" as provided in the Handbook of Operating Procedures to the extent consistent with Regents' Rules and Regulations, Rule 30602.

  4. Termination or Other appropriate Disciplinary Action. If the results of an evaluation under this policy lead to the disciplinary action of termination, the due process procedures specified in the U.T. Tyler HOP 3.1.11 and Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Rule 31008 will be followed. If disciplinary action other than termination is considered appropriate, such faculty members shall have access to procedures that include notice of the specific charges and a hearing prior to the imposition of disciplinary action.

E. Responsibilities

Not applicable.

F. Review

Head for this policy is the Provost. This policy shall be reviewed every five years or sooner if necessary by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Faculty Senate.

ORIGINALLY APPROVED: 12/01/2001
LAST AMENDED: 11/12/2013