Post Tenure Review Process

The Dean shall conduct annual reviews of all tenured faculty members with the exception of library professionals.

The purposes of such reviews shall be to:

1. recognize and reward productive faculty members,
2. redirect the efforts of faculty members to increase or improve their productivity, and
3. correct instances of unsatisfactory performance.

The Dean shall notify a faculty member whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory, as defined in Section G. This notice shall specify precisely the reasons for the Deans decision. If a faculty member receives two successive unsatisfactory reviews or three unsatisfactory reviews in five years, the Dean shall notify the Post Tenure Review Committee. This committee shall meet with the faculty member to develop a professional development plan. This plan will cover no more than three years. The plan may be extended to a fourth year for good cause.

This plan shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to the following:

1. Specification of the area(s) needing improvement;
2. Establishing specific goals, the accomplishment of which signifies satisfactory performance;
3. Identification of specific resources available to the faculty member to use to accomplish these goals;
4. A time table in which to accomplish these goals;
5. A method to periodically reassess the usefulness of these goals and the resources available to the faculty member and to make revisions in either, if necessary to help the faculty member achieve a satisfactory level of performance;
6. A method to periodically assess whether or not the faculty member is progressing toward these goals; and
7. A method to determine whether or not the faculty member has accomplished these goals.

The committee shall provide the Dean with a copy of the plan and any periodic updates or revisions. The committee shall submit a final report to the Dean upon the conclusion of the plan. This report shall describe the efforts of the faculty member and the committee during the life of the plan and shall also include the committee’s determination whether or not the faculty member has met the goals set out in the plan.

1. Composition of Committee: The Post Tenure Review Committee shall be an ad hoc committee consisting of three members: the Chair of the Promotion & Tenure Committee (or the Chairs designee), the Chair of the Faculty Development Committee (or the Chairs designee), and a member appointed by the Dean. Only tenured professors may serve on this committee.
2. Committee Workload: The committee shall not work with more than one faculty member at a time. In the event that a second faculty member is referred to the committee during the period of another faculty members Professional Development plan, the Chairs of the Promotion & Tenure Committee and the Faculty Development Committee and the Dean shall appoint a second committee. In any event, no member of the faculty shall be required to serve as a member of the Post-Tenure Review Committee more often than three out of every five consecutive years.

1. Generally: “Unsatisfactory performance” means demonstrably insufficient and inadequate performance of those basic responsibilities which are fundamental to legal education and to the mission of the Law School.
2. Commentary: All faculty members have different strengths and contribute in different ways to the successful operation of the law school. It is the faculty members overall performance and contribution to the law school which should be evaluated in determining unsatisfactory performance. Each area of performance must be evaluated in light of special assignments which, because of the time and nature of the effort involved in the assignments, may divert the faculty member from his or her normal duties.
3. Teaching: Unsatisfactory performance in teaching means demonstrably insufficient and inadequate performance in the areas of preparation, attendance, effort, classroom presentation, and availability to students outside the classroom.
4. Scholarship: Unsatisfactory performance in scholarship means demonstrably inadequate and insufficient performance by failure to engage over an extended period of time in some form of relevant scholarly effort, whether traditional or applied.
5. Service: Unsatisfactory performance in service means demonstrably inadequate and insufficient performance by failure to engage over an extended period of time in university, law school, or relevant public service.