Back to Top
Skip to Content
Home :: Policies :: Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review

Responsible Department
Academic Affairs
Effective Date
04/14/2021
  1. .

    Policy Purpose

    1. The purpose of this policy is to define the Post-Tenure Review policy for the University of North Georgia (the “University”).

    2. The purpose of post-tenure review is to examine, recognize, and enhance the performance of tenured faculty members. The post-tenure review is directed toward multi-year accomplishments and plans for professional development. It is retrospective as well as prospective and takes into account that faculty will have different emphases and assignments at various points in their careers.

    3. This policy defines the timeline and procedures that the University will follow as it approaches the Post-Tenure Review of the University’s tenured faculty.

    4. This policy supersedes the previous policy in Section 5.5 of the Faculty Handbook, which was in effect until the effective date of this policy.
  2. .

    Policy Statement

    1. Post-Tenure Review

      1. The post-tenure review is not a reconsideration of tenure, but rather a constructive five-year performance review that serves to highlight contributions and future opportunities as well as identify any deficiencies in performance and, in those cases, provide a plan for addressing concerns.

      2. With the exception of tenured administrators whose duties are primarily administrative (as determined by the Provost), all tenured faculty will be reviewed. The five-year review cycle will start again after any successful review for promotion, post-tenure review and/or the completion of a professional development plan. Administrators who return to a full-time teaching load will have a post-tenure review in their fifth year following the return to full-time faculty status.

    2. Post-Tenure Review Structure

      1. Each faculty member’s post-tenure portfolio will be reviewed by two levels: the department level and the college level post-tenure review committees (“post-TRC”). The portfolio will be reviewed in the following order:

        1. Department post-TRC,
        2. Department head,
        3. College post-TRC, and
        4. Dean

      2. The post-TRC letter written at each level will be added to the faculty member’s portfolio for inclusion in the review by those completing the review at subsequent levels.

      3. Final recommendations will be made by the dean of each college and shall be informed by the recommendations from the department post-TRC, the department head, and the college post-TRC. Recommendations that dissent from those made by the previous entity must be documented in writing with explicit justifications that are clearly aligned with the department’s post-tenure guidelines.

      4. Each department is responsible for developing and implementing the rules for selecting the members of the departmental post-TRC and the college post-TRC representative. The composition of the departmental post-TRC should consist of five, but not fewer than three, tenured faculty with at least a majority from within the department. Only tenured faculty who are not responsible for performing annual evaluations of any candidate up for post-tenure review are eligible to serve. The chair of the departmental post-TRC will be elected by the members of the committee.

      5. Faculty serving on a post-TRC at either the departmental or college level must meet the following requirements:

        1. They must be tenured and not currently under post-tenure review.

        2. They must currently be within a five-year cycle for post-tenure review (i.e., they cannot be on temporary administrative duty, sabbatical, or other assignment in which the five- year post-tenure review cycle is suspended).

        3. Faculty serving in administrative capacities requiring them to evaluate their faculty colleagues (e.g., for Faculty Annual Reports) should not serve on a post-TRC; they should only serve on these committees if their service is absolutely necessary to populate the committees with otherwise qualified faculty. They may not serve on a post-TRC if any faculty member they evaluate is up for post-tenure review.

        4. As much as possible, membership on the departmental post-TRC should proportionally represent each campus on which that department has faculty. Membership should rotate to provide service opportunities to as many eligible tenured faculty within the department as reasonable.

      6. At the department level, faculty will be issued a recommendation letter by both the department head and the department post-TRC. The recommendation letters of the department post-TRC and the department head will provide an overview of the previous five years’ annual reports and the reviewers’ (committee’s) assessment of the faculty member’s accomplishments during that period and will describe any specific deficiencies in meeting departmental post-tenure guidelines. Each letter must make a clear recommendation for either a “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” evaluation.

      7. Membership in the college post-TRC should consist of at least one tenured faculty member (not currently up for post-tenure review) from each department in the college. The dean will notify each department from which campus or campuses they should select their representative each year to guarantee that multiple campuses will be represented on the college post-TRC. To the fullest extent feasible, the campus[es] represented by each department will rotate to give as many tenured faculty in departments an opportunity to serve on the college post-TRC as possible. Each department shall develop the policy by which its member for the college post-TRC shall be selected and notify the dean each year who that member is. A committee member cannot serve on both the department and college post-TRC simultaneously, and membership of the college post- TRC should rotate each year whenever possible. The chair of the college post-TRC will be elected by the members of the committee.

      8. The college post-TRC will rate the portfolio as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on the information received from the candidate’s file and the previous post-TRC departmental reviews. If the college post-TRC rates the portfolio as unsatisfactory in meeting the departmental guidelines, deficiencies must be clearly delineated within their recommendation letter.

      9. To assist in this decision making, all post-TRCs are empowered to request additional information or clarification, upon approval of the Provost, from the department head or faculty member. Such requests should typically be limited to documents that were incomplete or under review at the time of original submission.

      10. The dean's recommendation letter, then, will be informed by the recommendations of the department post-TRC, the department head, and the college post-TRC.

    3. Criteria for Post-Tenure Review

      1. A determination of “Satisfactory” requires that satisfactory performance has been sustained over the last five years, as documented in the faculty member’s annual reviews and portfolio. Faculty must illustrate continued effectiveness in the areas of teaching; research/creative/scholarly endeavors; and service to the University, college, department, profession, and community. Units with specific guidelines relative to their accreditation status may have additional criteria.

      2. If a faculty member receives a recommendation letter from the dean citing unsatisfactory performance, the faculty member in consultation with the department head and dean will formulate plans and timelines (“The Development Plan”) to clearly resolve the issues identified in the post-TRC recommendation letters.

      3. Failure by a faculty member to submit a portfolio for review after official notification of the requirement will result in an automatic unsatisfactory evaluation. Official notification requires an email with timestamp on or before the deadline.
  3. .

    Support Information

    USG BOR Policy Manual Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty (Section 8.3.5.4).

  4. .

    Procedures

    1. Procedure for Post-Tenure Review

      (Please see the University of North Georgia Master Calendar for P & T dates or section 5.1.2 of the Faculty Handbook)

    2. Documentation

      The following documentation will be presented in a University electronic portfolio system:

      1. Cover Sheet
        • Name of college and department
        • Faculty member’s name
        • Degrees earned
        • Years, dates, and current rank and title in tenure-track position
        • Date and type (tenure, promotion, or post-tenure) of last review

      2. Full Professional Curriculum Vitae

      3. Summary of major accomplishments achieved during the years under review in the areas of teaching, research/creative/scholarly endeavors, and service to the University, college, department, profession, and community (2-6 pages). (For the purposes of post-tenure review, the years under review are the five most recent full calendar years prior to the evaluation.)

      4. Brief (1-2 pages) statement of projected plans for contributions over the next five years.

      5. Copies of previous five annual performance evaluations – annual self-evaluations with department head’s (or designated coordinator’s) evaluations for years under consideration.

      6. Copies of available student evaluations for all semesters under review.

      7. Description of activities that were not evaluated during most recent promotion or tenure decision but occurred prior to the earliest annual review included in the current post tenure portfolio. (optional)

      8. Letter from primary campus supervisor if different from department head. (Optional, but required if the primary campus supervisor performs annual evaluations for the applicant.)

      9. While portfolios should be complete, conciseness is encouraged.

    3. Actions after Satisfactory Determination

      If a faculty member receives a satisfactory post-tenure review, the dean, in communication with the department head, will recommend a salary enhancement.

    4. Actions after Unsatisfactory Determination

      1. Upon receiving an “Unsatisfactory” letter of recommendation from the dean, the faculty member and department head will create a development plan designed to remedy the specific deficiencies found in the review. If the faculty member submits an appeal as outlined below, the creation of a development plan shall be postponed until final disposition of the appeal.

      2. The development plan shall include (i) clearly defined goals and outcomes, (ii) activities designed to achieve the outcomes, (iii) a timeline for the activities, (iv) a monitoring strategy including criteria for measuring progress, and (v) sources of support to assist the faculty member. The dean must approve the plan, which will then be signed by the faculty member, the department head, and the dean.

      3. The faculty member is responsible for meeting the goals of the plan. The department head and dean are jointly responsible for providing necessary support to implement the plan. This support may include funding for specific activities, rearrangement of duties and commitments, or other necessary resources. The department head will include an assessment of progress on the development plan as a supplement to each year’s annual evaluation and forward the report to the dean. The department head’s annual report should address any obstacles to successful completion of the plan and any additional resources required.

      4. After three years, the faculty member will undergo a review of the development plan. The faculty member may choose to undergo post-tenure review after only one or two years if the goals of the development plan are completed prior to the three year period. The portfolio must include the original development plan, materials supporting the measurement of outcomes delineated in the plan, and any additional documents that the faculty member may wish to include. The portfolio will be reviewed by the department post-TRC, the department head, the college post-TRC, and the dean.

      5. If the goals of the development plan were met, as determined by the above noted committees and supervisors at the department and college level, the dean will formally declare that the plan is complete. If the post-TRC committees and supervisors find that the goals of the development plan were not met within the three years, the faculty member may initiate the appeals process as outlined below.

      6. If the faculty member chooses not to initiate the appeals process, the Provost, with approval of the President, will determine the next appropriate action, which could include (i) University colleagues continuing to work with the individual toward completion of the plan, (ii) reassignment if it appears that the individual will not successfully complete the original plan, or (iii) other personnel actions in accordance with the USG Academic and Student Affairs Handbook Section 4.6 and USG BOR Policy Manual 8.3.9.

    5. Appellate Process and Timeline

      1. Right to Appeal

        Any faculty member undergoing post-tenure review who receives a letter from the dean citing unsatisfactory performance may appeal that determination. To exercise the right to appeal, faculty members must submit their written letters indicating the desire to appeal (the “Notice of Appeal”) to the provost within ten business days of official notification of the dean’s post-tenure decision and after being granted access to reviewer letters in their online portfolio. Failure to submit a notice of appeal within ten business days will constitute a waiver of the right to appeal. The Provost, in his/her sole discretion, may grant an extension to this deadline.

      2. Process for Appeal

        After submitting a notice of appeal, a faculty member must prepare a written response to the dean's letter and submit it to the Provost within an additional five business days (for a total of fifteen business days) after official notification of the dean's post-tenure decision.

      3. Review by the University Post-Tenure Appeals Committee (Post-TAC)

        A University post-tenure appeals committee (post-TAC) will be selected by the Faculty Senate Executive Board and consist of seven tenured faculty with two of these members being from the college of the faculty member making the appeal. The purpose of the University post-TAC is to recommend whether the recommendation letter of the dean should be upheld or overturned. The University post-TAC will review the portfolio, the post-TRC letters and the faculty member’s appeal. The University post-TAC may ask for additional documentation from the faculty member for items that may have been incomplete or under review at the time of the original submission(s). In addition, the University post-TAC may seek clarification from the post-tenure committees, department head, or dean. After review and discussion, the University post-TAC will, by secret ballot and simple majority, judge the faculty member’s post-tenure review as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory and forward the majority recommendation to the President of the University. The President will make the final determination based on a review of the University post-TAC’s recommendation.

      4. Review by President

        1. The President shall advise the faculty member, in writing, of the final disposition of the appeal by the end of the faculty member’s contract year. If the President judges the faculty member’s performance as sufficient after an appeal of the initial unsatisfactory recommendation by the dean, the faculty member’s post-tenure review will be deemed successful, and the dean, in communication with the department head, will recommend a salary enhancement. If the President judges the faculty member’s performance as deficient after an appeal of the initial unsatisfactory recommendation by the dean, the faculty member may choose to enter into the development plan as outlined above.

        2. If the President judges the faculty member’s performance as deficient following an appeal of an unsuccessful completion of the goals of a development plan, the President will determine the next appropriate action. Actions could include (i) University colleagues continuing to work with the individual toward completion of the plan, (ii) reassignment if it appears that the individual will not successfully complete the original plan, or (iii) other personnel actions in accordance with the USG Academic and Student Affairs Handbook Section 4.6 and USG BOR Policy Manual 8.3.9.

    6. Any additional related operating procedures must comply with and should reference this policy.

UNG follows Section 508 Standards and WCAG 2.0 for web accessibility. If you require the content on this web page in another format, please contact the ADA Coordinator.


Back to Top