Chancellor's Memorandum #77
December 1, 1989
Procedures for Review of Regular Faculty on Tenure-Track or Tenured Appointments
The University of Missouri Board of Curators stipulate that the performance of tenure-track faculty on probationary status must be reviewed each year during their probationary period. UM Executive Guideline No. 27 (2-2-93) requires a similar annual review process for faculty who have attained tenure status. Each academic unit is to establish written procedures based on this document which must be approved by the Chancellor through the Office of the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
The maximum probationary period for faculty on an initial regular term appointment (not including credit for previous years' service) is:
|
Instructor |
Seven Years |
|
Assistant Professor |
Seven Years |
|
Associate Professor |
Five Years |
|
Professor |
Four Years |
The probationary period enables new faculty to establish a pattern of sustained performance for evaluation by the appropriate chair/unit review committee and Dean or Director. Professional growth as evidenced by teaching, scholarly activity, and service is the primary factor in granting tenure as detailed in the guidelines set forth in Chancellor's Memorandum #35. These same guidelines will be used to annually review faculty who have attained tenure status.
I. Annual Review of Regular Faculty on Probationary Status
Decisions to grant faculty tenure dictate a careful annual review during the probationary period. This process cannot wait until the year of mandatory tenure review. Yearly progress must be monitored and, if deemed appropriate, non-renewal of a contract should be the recommendation. Annual review of regular faculty is only one part of a complete faculty development process. The total process also must include procedures that assist the faculty member's maximum professional growth and greatest possible contribution to the University and his or her academic unit.
Each academic unit's annual evaluation review procedure for regular faculty must meet the following criteria:
1. The Academic unit will form its own Review Committee and review process in accordance with established bylaws and procedures. (If appropriate, this can be an existing promotion and tenure committee.) All committee members will be tenured full professors. If a unit does not have enough tenured full professors to serve, then tenured associate professors can be appointed.
2. The academic unit must develop its procedure with faculty input. The plan must incorporate the guidelines set forth in Chancellor's Memorandum #35 and be approved by the Chancellor, through the Office of the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
3. Evaluations are part of the professional development of faculty and should include established procedure for assisting faculty in their professional development.
4. The annual review process must include a written performance evaluation of teaching, scholarly activity, and service to the academic unit and University.
4a. Faculty will receive written performance evaluation from their immediate supervisor and have opportunity to provide written dissent. Both the written evaluation and rebuttal become a part of the faculty member's official record and a copy will be forwarded to the Chancellor through the Vice Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
4b. Performance objectives will be coordinated, by July 15 each year, between faculty member and immediate supervisor. Objectives for the coming year will be provided to the faculty member by the immediate supervisor, and must include components to assist faculty in their professional development.
4c. Performance objectives must recognize individual differences; however, reasonable expectations must be established for each of the three areas.
4d. Performance evaluations also are to measure faculty contributions that achieve common goals of the academic unit and the University.
4e. The evaluation design should identify unsatisfactory, satisfactory and outstanding performance.
II. Annual Review of Tenured Regular Faculty
Each unit will implement procedures, stipulated in Section I above, to annually review performance of tenured regular faculty.
In cases where the performance of a faculty member is deemed unsatisfactory by the dean/director or immediate supervisor, a faculty committee of the academic unit will conduct a review. This review is solely for the purpose of determining whether the faculty committee concurs with the evaluation of the dean/director/supervisor. The finding of the faculty committee shall in no way compel nor preclude further action against a faculty member pursuant to other existing procedures involving other faculty committees, including, but not limited to, the campus Faculty Committee on Tenure described in Section 310.060 of the Collected Rules and Regulations. If there is a finding of unsatisfactory performance by the faculty committee, the dean will schedule, before April 15 (each year), a meeting with the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to review the evaluation and recommendation(s). During this meeting, the dean will present specific documented examples of the performance deemed to be unsatisfactory. A decision then will be made on what action may be taken to address the situation. In cases where the Vice Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs deems the evidence is insufficient, no further action will be taken.
If decided that an evaluation plan for the ensuing year is needed, the Vice Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will arrange, within thirty calendar days, a meeting between the faculty member, the immediate supervisor, and the academic dean/director. The purpose of the meting is to discuss the proposed performance plan for the following academic year. The Vice Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will provide, within fourteen calendar days, the faculty member with a written plan of expected performance. The plan will include components for the faculty member's professional development. The academic dean/director or immediate supervisor will be expected to conduct a mid-year and year-end progress evaluation. This evaluation will be shared with the faculty member and the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs . All performance evaluations shall be in writing. The faculty member may submit a written response within two weeks following her/his receipt of the written evaluations.
The Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will report to the Chancellor on all faculty evaluations. The Chancellor's review recommendations will be forwarded to the President by July 1 (each year).