THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE
FACULTY SENATE

Senate Document Number 1000F

Date of Senate Approval 12/07/00

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Statement of Faculty Senate Action:

FWDC 4: 2000 Revisions to the Post-Tenure Review Process

Revisions to SD0198F approved 8/27/98
Revisions to SD1198F approved 12/10/98
Includes updated passages to reflect revisions provided in SD2899S and SD2999S

Senate Document 0198F established the framework for Post-Tenure Review at UNC Asheville.

Senate Document 1198F provided guidelines for the Post-Tenure Review Committee. Both will be updated, amended, and replaced in their entirety with the documents below. Changes are bolded for easier reading. A separate document provides the full text of the original documents, with changes and rationales.

Effective Date: Upon approval by the Office of the President

I. REVISIONS TO SENATE DOCUMENT SD0198F

POLICY ON POST-TENURE REVIEW
All faculty members at UNCA are periodically reviewed and evaluated to assure continuing quality of performance and professional growth. Formal faculty evaluation is conducted for the purpose of (1) Annual review of faculty members for merit salary increases; (2) Assessing qualifications for reappointment, promotion, or tenure; (3) Assuring continued excellence of faculty members who have received tenure.

Additions to the Faculty Handbook:
3.12 Post-Tenure Review
Post-Tenure review at UNC Asheville is a periodic, comprehensive, cumulative review of tenured members of the faculty that emphasizes peer participation. The primary purpose of Post-Tenure Review (PTR) is to ensure continued faculty development and promote faculty vitality.

3.12.1 Objectives of Post-Tenure Review
Entirely separate from reviews for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, PTR is a formative process that focuses on identifying specific areas of strength among senior faculty and, when appropriate, areas requiring more concentrated development efforts. PTR recognizes and respects disciplinary differences in pedagogy and in the focus of faculty professional activities. This procedure recognizes that each faculty member is reviewed annually by the department chair and that this review is a comprehensive evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service. The PTR creates a summary of several years of professional activity that may address trends not immediately obvious in an annual comprehensive review and annual faculty record. As professionals, faculty will welcome opportunities for and are committed to professional growth. The faculty assume primary responsibility for the implementation of activities which foster professional growth in ways that support the missions of their programs and the University as well as their own professional career(s). Professional development plans (see section 3.12.3 below) will identify resource support necessary to accomplish specified goals. The VCAA is responsible for approval of these plans and allocation of any special resource support required to accomplish the objectives of the plan(s).

3.12.2 Procedure for Evaluation
1. The term "faculty member" includes all persons on a nine or twelve-month contract who teach one half or more of a full load and librarians with faculty rank.

2. After an initial phase-in period, tenured faculty members shall be evaluated no less frequently than every five years. During this phase-in period, faculty who have gone the longest since their last review for tenure or promotion will be evaluated first. The VCAA may approve the postponement of Post-Tenure Review in a case of illness, leave of absence, family emergency or other similar circumstances.

3. A review for promotion will take precedence over the PTR process and may replace it as follows. When faculty members apply for promotion in the same year they are to be evaluated for PTR, the PTR will be postponed. If successful, the review for promotion will satisfy the requirement for PTR and will start a new five-year PTR clock for the faculty member who is promoted. If the review for promotion is not successful, however, the faculty member will complete the PTR process in the following year, even if the application for promotion is renewed. Thus, post-tenure reviews will be deferred by an application for promotion only once.

4. In the Spring before the academic year in which a tenured faculty member is to be evaluated, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs begins the evaluation process by notifying the selected tenured faculty members and requesting them to begin assembling materials for the review committee. In this process, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs serves as facilitator and convener.

5. The evaluation will be performed by a University-wide committee called the Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC).

6. Evaluation of tenured faculty members is peer evaluation. The committee will consider a variety of materials. Peer observation of teaching will always be one of the procedures employed in the evaluation.

7. The Post Tenure Review Committee (PTRC) will review a dossier containing documents from several sources. The evaluee will submit the items noted (see A 1-4, below) to the Chair of his or her department. The Chair will provide items 5 and 6. For evaluation of Chairs, the most senior tenured member of the department will normally assume the duties of the Chair, as described below.

A. Completed Dossier
The evaluee's dossier is assembled by the Chair (or, for evaluation of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department) and submitted to the PTRC. The complete dossier will include, in order:

1) The Evaluee's Statement (submitted by Evaluee to Chair)

2) The Professional Curriculum Vitae (submitted by Evaluee to Chair)

3) Chair's Evaluation (prepared by the Chair, or for the review of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department)

4) Results from Peer Observation of Classroom Teaching (prepared by the Chair)

5) Annual Faculty Records (past five years, collected by VCAA and submitted to the Chair)

6) Merit Evaluations (past five years, collected by VCAA and submitted to the Chair)

7) Summary of numbers from course evaluations over the past five years (provided by Office of Institutional Research to the Chair). Written student comments may be requested by the PTRC and will be made available.

B. The Evaluee's Statement
1) Purpose: The Evaluee's Statement should be a reflective, self-assessment that comments on the evaluee's past, present and future contributions to the department, the university and their missions. This statement may also be used to discuss factors and extenuating circumstances affecting the evaluee's performance, which are not usually covered in the listing of activities by category. The evaluee should refer to categories outlined in Section 3.5.4.4. of the Faculty Handbook.

2) Format: The Evaluee's Statement should be written as a cover letter to the Chair of the PTRC. The statement is written in narrative form; possible issues to address, along with categories and guidelines for evaluating performance, are discussed in Section 3.5.4.4. The Evaluee should also outline briefly, his or her professional plans for the next five years, again, in the context of the department and university mission, which may also include a discussion of resources required.

C. The Professional Curriculum Vitae
1) Purpose: The complete curriculum vitae puts the evaluee's professional work at UNCA into perspective relative to the individual's career in general. This allows the PTRC to evaluate the individual's recent activities or changing emphases at UNCA in light of his or her previous levels of activity and responsibilities.

2) Format: The vita should be written in a format appropriate to apply for an academic position in the discipline. It should include information about the evaluee's education, degrees, awards, honors, professional employment and most important, papers/publications/artistic activities, grant activities, professional consultancies and major service activities.

D. Materials supporting professional activity (submitted by evaluee to Department Chair, if requested)
1) Purpose: Materials selected by the evaluee are meant to emphasize or augment the vita regarding teaching, scholarly and service activities. Materials provided should be chosen to illuminate the quality of the evaluee's activities rather than duplicate those reported in the vita.

2) Format: Materials provided by the evaluee should be representative and only a
sampling, supporting:

a) Teaching: Representative syllabi, assignments, student work or other materials illustrating teaching practices and student learning.

b) Scholarship/Creative Activity: Representative scholarly papers, letters of commendation, awards, reviews of scholarly, creative or performance activities.

c) Service: Representative professional service activities to local or greater community, letters of commendation, awards, etc.

E. Results of Peer Observation of Teaching (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)

1) Purpose: Evaluations of teaching by peer observation supplement other measures of effective teaching.

2) Format: Each peer observer should submit a one to two page written summary of his or her observations to the faculty member, and the Chair of the evaluee's department. Reports must include specific comments on the dimensions cited above.

F. Chair's Evaluation (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)

1) Purpose: The Chair's Evaluation has always been central to decisions concerning reappointment, tenure and promotion. It is a summary evaluation that, when viewed together with the evaluations appended to the Faculty record, provides an historical account of the evaluee's overall performance as viewed by the Chair.

2) Format: The Chair's Evaluation should be written in simple narrative form, to the Chair of the PTRC, addressing the evaluee's past, present and future contributions to the department, the university and their missions. This statement may also be used to address factors and extenuating circumstances affecting the evaluee's performance, which are not usually covered in the listing of activities by category (Section 3.5.4.4 of Faculty Handbook). The Chair must consult with faculty colleagues, as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook, Section 3.5.4.1: (8) Evaluation by faculty colleagues. For purposes of faculty development, the Chair should discuss the evaluation with the faculty member, prior to submission of the evaluation to the PTRC.

8. The faculty member and his or her chair will provide all materials to the Office of Academic Affairs by December 1.

9. For Post-Tenure Review of Chairs, the most senior tenured member of the department will normally assume the duties of the Chair. However, a Chair who perceives a conflict of interest with that person may petition the VCAA to appoint another tenured faculty member to those responsibilities. If no tenured member is available within the department, the VCAA may appoint one from a department within the same division of the university, giving weight to seniority of UNCA service and consulting with the Committee on Faculty Welfare and Development.

3.12.3 Results of Post-Tenure Review
1. The PTRC will write a report that will go to the faculty member, the department chair, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The report will be submitted by March 1.

2. The evaluee has the right to challenge any of the contents of the PTRC's report by submitting, to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, any further evidence, mitigating or complicating circumstances, etc. This must be in a letter received in the Vice Chancellor's office within fourteen calendar days of the submission of the PTRC's report. The VCAA will respond within twenty-one calendar days of receiving the challenge letter.

3. The PTRC is advisory to the VCAA and like the committee for tenure review makes recommendations directly to the VCAA. During initial review of an evaluee, the PTRC makes one of two recommendations:

A. The faculty member has performed at a Successful level. The Post-Tenure Review process will then be complete. The PTR Committee Report will be sent to the faculty member, with copies to the Chair and the VCAA. The Report will express collegial appreciation for contributions to the mission of UNC Asheville, and will take note of any performances, accomplishments or contributions that appear excellent or exemplary. The Report may express support for the provision of university resources such as a Teaching-Scholarship Year, or an Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment when the faculty member has shown that this will benefit future excellence.

B. The evaluee has one or more areas that require concentrated development efforts. The PTR Committee advisory report dossier will be sent to the VCAA for further review and final decision, with copies to the evaluee and the Chair. The Report will identify the area or areas of concern while noting any performances or accomplishments that appear commendable or excellent. The faculty member may challenge the advisory report as provided above.

If the VCAA affirms the Report after considering a challenge, or affirms an unchallenged report, the faculty member will construct a Development Plan in consultation with the Chair and the Associate VCAA assigned as liaison to the PTR process. The Plan will address the area or areas that warrant improvement. The Plan will include a time when the evaluee will again be reviewed by the PTRC - no less than one year later, up to three years later. The Chair and the VCAA will review the plan to determine resource implications. The Plan must be approved by the VCAA.

Development Plans may include provision for a Peer Mentor who is requested by the Evaluee and approved by the VCAA. Peer Mentors should be senior members of the faculty who are skillful in collegial relationships and recognized for excellence in the area(s) requiring improvement. On request a Peer Mentor may be appointed before the Development Plan is finalized.

4. At the conclusion of the term specified in the development plan the evaluee will be reviewed a second time by the PTRC. The committee will review the original file, the development plan, and a new file documenting developmental progress. In all of the following contingency proceedings, the PTR Advisory Report will be sent to the VCAA for review and final decision, with copies to the evaluee and the chair. The PTRC now can make one of three recommendations to the VCAA:

A. The evaluee is performing at a Successful Level. The advisory Report will recognize developmental progress and take note of any added accomplishments, performances or contributions to the mission of UNCA which are commendable or excellent.

B. The evaluee has made some progress toward remediating problem areas but should continue his/her efforts,

C. The evaluee has failed to make any progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions. In a case that warrants sanctions the VCAA will decide the nature of these sanctions. Before implementing these the VCAA should consult with the PTRC, much as the VCAA now consults with the Committee of Tenured Faculty before issuing a denial of tenure, but the final decision, as with tenure, is up to the VCAA.

If the VCAA affirms a PTRC Report that recommends continued development work, the evaluee will revise the plan in consultation with his/her Chair and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs assigned as liaison to the PTR process and come before the PTRC one final time in 1-2 years.

5. If a final review is warranted, the PTRC now can make only one of two recommendations:

A. The PTRC advises that the evaluee is performing at a Successful Level. The Report will acknowledge developmental progress and take note of any new performances, accomplishments or contributions to the mission of UNCA that appear excellent or commendable.

B. The PTRC advises that the evaluee has failed to make sufficient progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions.

6. Any sanctions including discharge or other disciplinary action imposed on faculty members for continuing deficiency in performance shall be in compliance with the criteria and procedures for due process as established in Chapter VI, Sections 602, 603, and 605 of The Code of the University of North Carolina.

ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE FACULTY HANDBOOK to establish the PTR Committee:

10.2.6 Post-Tenure Review Committee

10.2.6.1 Definition.
The Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC) is an elected faculty committee charged with the responsibility of carrying out the intent and purpose of Post-Tenure Review as articulated in Sections 3.12 and 3.12.1. The functions of the PTRC are to ensure continuing quality of performance and professional growth of senior faculty (defined as tenured faculty at any rank who teach at least one-half time); to provide constructive feedback to senior faculty regarding professional growth; to serve in an advisory capacity to the VCAA in matters pertaining to actions taken as specified in the policy on Post Tenure Review.

10.2.6.2 Method of Selection
The PTRC will consist of four eligible faculty members (see Section 10.2.6.3 for eligibility criteria), one selected from each of the university's three divisions, and a fourth member who holds the highest number of votes after the first three members are selected. Members will serve two-year terms. Members may not succeed themselves. No more than one member may come from any one academic department. New members formally replace outgoing members on the date of the first faculty meeting of the academic year.

Each year the Faculty Senate will conduct an election by which the voting faculty shall elect two new members to replace outgoing committee members. Members will first be elected from any division lacking a representative. If an opening remains after all divisions are represented, the remaining highest vote-getter will be elected.

The Post-Tenure Review Committee elects its own Chair. The Chair is responsible for maintaining committee records and passing those records to the next duly elected Chair of the PTRC. The permanent file for PTRC records is maintained in the Office of Academic Affairs.

10.2.6.3 Eligibility
To be eligible to serve on the PTRC a person must:

1) be a current, tenured full-time member of the UNCA faculty,

2) have served as a full-time member of the UNCA faculty for at least five (5) years,

3) not be a member of either the Committee of the Tenured Faculty, the Faculty Committee on Hearings, or the Faculty Grievance Committee.

A member of his or her own department may not review a person coming up for Post Tenure Review. A member of the PTRC who is from the same department as a person under review will be excused from discussions and will not participate in the review of a departmental colleague.

10.2.6.4 Challenge
If a person scheduled for Post Tenure review feels there is a conflict of interest between themselves and a member of the PTRC, he or she may submit a written petition to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for a ruling on the challenge. The VCAA is to respond to the petition within three weeks from the date of receipt of the petition. The VCAA's decision is binding.

II. Revisions to Senate Document 1198F
Senate Document 1198F will be replaced in its entirety by the following. Changes are indicated by bolding. Bolding will be removed in the final version.

3.12.4 Post-Tenure Review Ranking Categories
Based upon the materials outlined in Section 3.12.2, subsection 6, items A-F, the PTRC will rank faculty performance as "Successful," or "In Need of Concentrated Development Efforts." General guidelines for these ranking categories are provided below.

UNCA evaluates faculty performance in several interrelated areas: (1) teaching;

(2) scholarship/creative activity and service to the profession; and (3) service to the department, to the university and to the community in the area of professional expertise.

To encourage the development of a well-rounded faculty in the context of UNCA's teaching mission, PTR evaluations will emphasize excellent teaching balanced by diverse contributions in other areas. Successful teaching will be the foremost criterion. The evaluation of teaching contributions may give weight to excellence in contributions beyond the classroom when this is evident in the dossier - the mentoring of students in research, creative curriculum or program design, contributions to general education and the like.

SUCCESSFUL
To be ranked Successful, the materials submitted by the faculty member will indicate good teaching on a consistent basis balanced by contributions to one or more of the areas indicated above - scholarship/creative work, and service. Teaching contributions may include those outside the classroom when they are evident in the dossier, as described above. Within this category, the PTRC Report may acknowledge specific excellent performances and exemplary contributions in any area.

The PTR process recognizes that the focus of professional activity may change over the course of a tenured faculty career. Successful tenured faculty careers at UNCA may have many forms. Given good teaching on a consistent basis, and given a demonstration of competent, fully engaged academic work that serves the mission of UNCA, the PTR evaluation will not seek to prescribe improvements in the focus of effort.

Post-Tenure Review is not a process of repeated tenure evaluations. Thus the PTRC Committee will apply criteria which follow from the prime purpose of PTR as stated by the General Administration of the UNC - to "ensure faculty development and promote faculty vitality."

NEEDS CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
This category is defined as falling short of standard expectations and thus requiring improvement because the demonstrated performance is unsatisfactory. To be placed in this category, there must be evidence of consistent deficiency over the five-year period of review.

A faculty member whose teaching consistently falls below UNCA standards will be assigned to this category. Competent teachers with an absence of contributions to scholarship/creative work and/or service may be considered for this category when the record does not demonstrate an offsetting special contribution of time and successful effort to academic work which serves the mission of UNCA.

III. Other Post-Tenure Review Changes
1. Specify Order of Election for Post -Tenure Review Committee
Add the words "the Post-Tenure Review Committee" to the UNCA Faculty Handbook, section 10.2.L as shown below. Modifies SD2682F:

10.2.L. In order to conform to the Tenure Policies and Practices of the University, the Committee of the Tenured Faculty, the Post-Tenure Review Committee, the Faculty Committee on Hearings, and the Faculty Grievance Committee shall be elected in said order. These elections shall be completed not later than April 15 of each year.

RATIONALE
The order of elections should include the Post-Tenure Review Committee. The order required by the Tenure Policies and Practices will be maintained. This will modestly increase the number of faculty members who are eligible for election to the Post-Tenure Review Committee.

2. Yearly Review of Post-Tenure Review Policy
Each year before the end of the spring semester but following the completion of post-tenure reviews of faculty, the PTRC will reexamine the provisions of the PTR policy. With the goal of bettering the PTR process, the PTRC will recommend potential improvements to the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) for further review, allowing the possibility of Senate action in the following Fall Semester.

RATIONALE
The Senate should continue to provide for active monitoring of this new process.

IV. RATIONALES FOR REVISIONS TO SENATE DOCUMENT SD0198F
Senate Document 0198F follows in its entirety. The changes proposed are indented and bolded beneath the provisions that they modify.

POLICY ON POST-TENURE REVIEW

Introduction: All faculty members at UNCA are periodically reviewed and evaluated to assure continuing quality of performance and professional growth.

Formal faculty evaluation is conducted for the purpose of

1. Annual review of faculty members for merit salary increases.

2. Assessing qualifications for reappointment, promotion, or tenure.

3. Assuring continued excellence of faculty members who have received tenure.

Additions to the Faculty Handbook:

3.12 Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review (PTR) is a faculty-based, faculty-managed review process that is designed to nurture and reward the continued development of senior faculty.

Post-Tenure Review is conducted within the context of the institutional and program mission(s) of The University of North Carolina Asheville; and seeks to foster and recognize complementarity between individual faculty's professional work and goals and those missions(s)."

Replace the two paragraphs above with the following:

3.12 Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure review at UNC Asheville is a periodic, comprehensive, cumulative review of tenured members of the faculty that emphasizes peer participation. The primary purpose of Post-Tenure Review (PTR) is to ensure continued faculty development and promote faculty vitality.

RATIONALE: The new paragraph above introduces PTR with the words of definition and purpose given it by General Administration Memorandum #371. The words "faculty-based, faculty managed process" are replaced by "emphasizes peer participation" since some provisions of the policy require recommendations by chairs and decisions by the VCAA while affording an advisory role to the faculty-based PTR Committee. An anomalous quotation mark is deleted at the end of the original.

3.12.1 Objectives of Post-Tenure Review

Entirely separate from reviews for reappointment, tenure, and promotion, PTR is a formative process that focuses on identifying specific areas of strength among senior faculty and, when appropriate, areas requiring more concentrated development efforts. PTR recognizes and respects disciplinary differences in pedagogy and in the focus of faculty professional activities. This procedure recognizes that each faculty member is reviewed annually by the department chair and that this review is a comprehensive evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service." The PTR creates a summary of several years of professional activity that may address trends not immediately obvious in an annual comprehensive review and annual faculty record. As professionals, faculty will welcome opportunities for and are committed to professional growth. The faculty assume primary responsibility for the implementation of activities which foster professional growth in ways that support the missions of their programs and the University as well as their own professional career(s). Professional development plans (see section 3.12.3 below) will identify resource support necessary to accomplish specified goals. The VCAA is responsible for approval of these plans and allocation of any special resource support required to accomplish the objectives of the plan(s).

Delete quotation mark at the end of sentence 3 in paragraph above.

RATIONALE: Corrects typographical error.

3.12.2 Procedure for Evaluation

1. The term "faculty member" includes all persons on a nine or twelve-month contract who teach one half or more of a full load.

2. After an initial phase in period, tenured faculty members shall be evaluated no less frequently than every five years. Post-Tenure Review does not replace a review for purposes of promotion. Successful evaluations for the purpose of promotion satisfy this requirement of post-tenure review. Faculty who have gone the longest without review will be evaluated first. The VCAA may approve postponement in the case of leaves of absence or in other extenuating circumstances.

Replace Paragraph 2 above with these two bolded paragraphs:

RATIONALE: These are updates reflecting verbatim the changes made by Senate Document 02899S, passed 2-11-99.

4. In the Spring before the academic year in which a tenured faculty member is to be evaluated, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs begins the evaluation process by notifying the selected tenured faculty members and requesting them to begin assembling materials for the review committee. In this process, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs serves as facilitator and convener.

Replace "Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs" with Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in the paragraph above; renumber as paragraph 4.

RATIONALE: Required by changes in the Office of Academic Affairs. The current Associate VCAA works with curriculum and accreditation review. The current VCAA, who has worked closely with the PTR process, should convene and facilitate it.

5. The evaluation will be performed by a University-wide committee called the Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC).

7. The Post Tenure Review Committee (PTRC) will review a dossier containing documents from several sources. The evaluee will submit the items noted (see A 1-4, below) to the Chair⁽¹⁾ of his or her department. The Chair will provide items 5 and 6. For evaluation of Chairs, the most senior tenured member of the department will assume the duties of the Chair, as described below.

Insert the word normally in the final sentence of paragraph above:

�For evaluation of Chairs, the most senior tenured member of the department will normally assume the duties of the Chair, as described below.

RATIONALE: Allows a Chair who perceives a conflict of interest to petition the VCAA for another senior tenured faculty member to write the PTR letter evaluating the chair, as further described below.

A. Completed Dossier

The evaluee's dossier is assembled by the Chair (or, for evaluation of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department) and submitted to the PTRC. The complete dossier will include, in order:

1) The Evaluee's Statement (submitted by Evaluee to Chair)

2) The Professional Curriculum Vitae (submitted by Evaluee to Chair)

3) Chair's Evaluation (prepared by the Chair, or for the review of Chairs, by the most senior tenured member of the department)

4) Results from Peer Observation of Classroom Teaching (prepared by the Chair)

5) Annual Faculty Records (past five years, collected by VCAA and submitted to Chair)

6) Merit Evaluations (past five years, collected by VCAA and submitted to the Chair)

B. The Evaluee's Statement

1) Purpose: The Evaluee's Statement should be a reflective, self-assessment that comments on the evaluee's past, present and future contributions to the department, the university and their missions. This statement may also be used to discuss factors and extenuating circumstances affecting the evaluee's performance, which are not usually covered in the listing of activities by category. The evaluee should refer to categories outlined in Section 3.5.4.4. of the Faculty Handbook.

2) Format: The Evaluee's Statement should be written as a cover letter to the Chair of the PTRC. The statement is written in narrative form; possible issues to address, along with categories and guidelines for evaluating performance, are discussed in Section 3.5.4.4. The evaluee should also outline briefly, his or her professional plans for the next five years, again, in the context of the department and university mission, which may also include a discussion of resources required.

C. The Professional Curriculum Vitae

1) Purpose: The complete curriculum vitae puts the evaluee's professional work at UNCA into perspective relative to the individual's career in general. This allows the PTRC to evaluate the individual's recent activities or changing emphases at UNCA in light of his or her previous levels of activity and responsibilities.

D. Materials supporting professional activity (submitted by evaluee to Department Chair, if requested)

1) Purpose: Materials selected by the evaluee are meant to emphasize or augment the vita regarding teaching, scholarly and service activities. Materials provided should be chosen to illuminate the quality of the evaluee's activities rather than duplicate those reported in the vita.

2) Format: Materials provided by the evaluee should be representative and only a sampling, supporting:

a) Teaching: Representative syllabi, assignments, student work or other materials illustrating teaching practices and student learning.

b) Scholarship/Creative Activity: Representative scholarly papers, letters of commendation, awards, reviews of scholarly, creative or performance activities, etc.

c) Service: Representative professional service activities to local or greater community, letters of commendation, awards, etc.

E. Results of Peer Observation of Teaching (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)

1) Purpose: Evaluations of teaching by peer observation supplement other measures of effective teaching

F. Chair's Evaluation (provided by the Chair of the department and assembled in the dossier submitted to the PTRC)

8. The faculty member and his or her chair will provide all materials to the committee by November 1.

Revise above as follows:

8. The faculty member and his or her chair will provide all materials to the Office of Academic Affairs by December 1.

RATIONALE: The Office of Academic Affairs maintains the PTR files. A December 1 deadline will not slow the work of the PTR Committee, and will benefit schedules for some Chairs since letters to the Tenure Committee are due November 1^st and pre-registration advising occurs in the last weeks of October.

Add point 9, as follows:

RATIONALE: Provides a safeguard for chairs while maintaining an emphasis on peer participation in the Post-Tenure Review.

3.12.3 Results of Post-Tenure Review

1. The PTRC will write a report which will go to the faculty member, the department chair, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The report will be submitted by March 1.

Add a sentence to the end of paragraph above:

The VCAA will respond within twenty-one calendar days of receiving the challenge letter. RATIONALE: The VCAA should have a timetable for response.

A. The evaluee "passes" review, performing at an adequate or superior level. When a faculty member is judged to have performed at a superior level he or she will receive a letter of commendation from the VCAA and be considered for an appropriate award as determined by the VCAA and existing institutional policies.

Replace "A" above with the following two paragraphs:

RATIONALES: (1) The term Successful replaces Adequate, as required by Senate action in 1999 (SD299S).

(2) The Superior category is deleted to provide a two-tier PTR ranking system. This will better serve the purposes of PTR by affording recognition to a variety of excellent performances and specific exemplary work within the Successful category. Recognition of very superior faculty performances can better be done by the campus-wide committees that confer the Distinguished Teaching Awards, the Feldman Professorships, the new Distinguished Scholarship/Creative Work Awards and other like distinctions.

(3) When a tenured faculty member has successfully satisfied the PTR policy requirements of peer observations of teaching, reflective statement, Chair evaluation of the cumulative record, and review by an independent faculty group, no further layer of review is needed.

(4) When a successful tenured faculty member makes a cogent case for resources to support continued excellence, PTR Committee endorsement is fitting and may enhance his or her chances for securing it.

B. The evaluee has some areas requiring more concentrated development efforts.

In the latter case, the evaluee is referred to the Office of the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for assistance with addressing problem areas. The PTRC identifies an area or areas in which improvement is warranted. The evaluee constructs a development plan in consultation with his/her Department Chair (or senior tenured department member) and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs which in turn must be approved by the VCAA. The plan includes a time at which the evaluee will again be reviewed by the PTRC (no less than 1 year later, up to 3 years later depending on the plan). The Faculty Member's chair and the Associate

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will review the plan to determine resource implications.

Replace "B" above with the following three paragraphs:

B. The evaluee has one or more areas that require concentrated development efforts. The PTR Committee advisory report and the PTR dossier will be sent to the VCAA for further review and final decision. The Report will identify the area or areas of concern while also noting any performances or accomplishments that appear commendable or excellent. Copies of the report will be sent to the faculty member and the Chair. The faculty member may challenge the advisory report as provided above.

If the VCAA affirms the Report after considering a challenge, or affirms an unchallenged report, the faculty member will construct a Development Plan in consultation with the Chair and the Associate VCAA assigned as liaison to the PTR process. The Plan will address the area or areas that warrant improvement. The Plan will include a time when the evaluee will again be reviewed by the PTRC - no less than one year later, up to three years later. The Chair and the VCAA will review the plan to determine resource implications. The Plan must be approved by the VCAA.

RATIONALE: Written feedback and a mechanism for response are required in PTR by General Administration Memorandum #371. A final review by the VCAA is appropriate when the PTRC advises that a member of the faculty "requires concentrated development efforts."

Development Plans may include provision for a Peer Mentor on request by the Evaluee and approval by the VCAA. Peer Mentors should be senior members of the faculty who are recognized for excellence in the area(s) requiring improvement and for skills in collegial relations. On request a Peer Mentor may be appointed before the Development Plan is finalized.

RATIONALE: Faculty members in this category may benefit from collegial support and mentoring. Giving this role a name and providing for it in the policy may encourage some to afford themselves of same, and will better allow the university to credit Peer Mentors with an important service to UNCA.

4. At the conclusion of that term, the evaluee is reviewed a second time by the PTRC. The committee has access to the original file, the development plan, and the new file documenting development progress. The PTRC now can make one of three recommendations to the VCAA:

Rewrite above to read

4. At the conclusion of the term specified in the development plan the evaluee will be reviewed a second time by the PTRC. The committee will review the original file, the development plan, and a new file documenting developmental progress. In all of the following contingency proceedings, the PTR Reports will be sent to the VCAA for review and final decision, with copies to the evaluee and the chair. The PTRC now can make one of three recommendations to the VCAA:

RATIONALE: This clarifies the meaning of the phrase "that term" in the original. Clarifies the advisory role of PTRC in "needs concentrated development efforts" cases.

A. The evaluee "passes" review, performing at an adequate or superior level. When the evaluee "passes" at a superior level he or she will receive a letter of commendation from the VCAA and be considered for an appropriate award as determined by the VCAA and existing institutional policies.

Rewrite as follows:

RATIONALE: Provides document consistency on two-category rating system. Provides written feedback to PTR evaluees.

B. The evaluee has made some progress toward remediating problem areas but should continue his/her efforts,

C. The evaluee has failed to make any progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions.

In a case that warrants sanctions the VCAA will decide the nature of these sanctions. Before implementing these the VCAA should consult with the PTRC, much as the VCAA now consults with the Committee of Tenured Faculty before issuing a denial of tenure, but the final decision, as with tenure, is up to the VCAA.

If the PTRC recommends continued development work, the evaluee revises the plan (in consultation with his/her Chair and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) and comes before the PTRC one final time in 1-2 years.

Revise as follows:

RATIONALE: Clarifies VCAA role. Specifies the Associate VCAA since there will be two.

5. If a final review is warranted, the PTRC now can make only one of two recommendations:

A. The evaluee "passes" review, performing at an adequate or superior level. When the evaluee "passes" at a superior level, he or she will receive a letter of commendation from the VCAA and be considered for an appropriate award as determined by the VCAA and existing institutional policies.

Rewrite "A" above to read as follows:

A. The PTRC advises that the evaluee is performing at a Successful Level. The

Report will acknowledge developmental progress and take note of any new performances, accomplishments or contributions to the mission of UNCA that appear excellent or commendable.

RATIONALE: Document consistency - reflects 2-category rating system and revised rating term Successful. Affords written feedback to evaluee.

B. The evaluee has failed to make sufficient progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions.

Rewrite "B" above as shown in bold:

B. The PTRC advises that the evaluee has failed to make sufficient progress toward improvement and warrants sanctions

RATIONALE: Editorial change for document consistency.

The following provisions establish the Post Tenure Review Committee:

10.2.6 Post-Tenure Review Committee

10.2.6.1 Definition.

The Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTRC) is an elected faculty committee charged with the responsibility of carrying out the intent and purpose of Post-Tenure Review as articulated in Sections 3.12 and 3.12.1. The functions of the PTRC are to ensure continuing quality of performance and professional growth of senior faculty (defined as tenured faculty at any rank who teach at least one-half time); to provide constructive feedback to senior faculty regarding professional growth; to serve in an advisory capacity to the VCAA in matters pertaining to actions taken as specified in the policy on Post Tenure Review.

10.2.6.2 Method of Selection

The PTRC will consist of four eligible faculty members (see Section 10.2.6.3 for eligibility criteria), one selected from each of the university's three divisions, and a fourth member who holds the highest number of votes after the first three members are selected. Members will serve two-year terms. Members may not succeed themselves. No more than one member may come from any one academic department. New members formally replace outgoing members on the date of the first faculty meeting of the academic year.

In the first year of the election to the PTRC, the two members with the lowest number of votes will serve a one year term. The remaining members will serve two year terms.

Delete the two sentences above.

RATIONALE: No longer needed.

10.2.6.3 Eligibility

To be eligible to serve on the PTRC a person must:

1) be a current, tenured full-time member of the UNCA faculty,

2) have served as a full-time member of the UNCA faculty for at least five (5) years,

3) not be a member of either the Committee of the Tenured Faculty, the Faculty Committee on Hearings, or the Faculty Grievance Committee.

A person coming up for Post Tenure Review may not be reviewed by a member of his or her own department. When a member of the PTRC is from the same department as a person under review, that member will be excused from discussions and not participate in the review of a departmental colleague.

10.2.6.4 Challenge

If a person scheduled for Post Tenure review feels there is a conflict of interest between themselves and a member of the PTRC, he or she may submit a written petition to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for a ruling on the challenge. The VCAA is to respond to the petition within three weeks from the date of receipt of the petition. The VCAA's decision is binding.

1. Throughout this document, the term "Chair" includes the Director of Environmental Studies.

V. RATIONALES FOR REVISIONS TO SENATE DOCUMENT 1198F

Senate Document 1198F follows in its entirety. The changes proposed are indented and bolded beneath the provisions that they modify. Bolding will be removed in the final version of revisions approved by the Senate.

Guidelines for the Post-Tenure Review Committee

1. Standards for Post-Tenure Review Ranking Categories

Based upon the materials outlined in Section 3.12.2, subsection 6, items A-F, the PTRC will rank faculty performance as "superior," "adequate," or "in need of development." Guidelines for each ranking category are provided below.

PROPOSED REVISION: Replace above with the following:

Based upon the materials outlined in Section 3.12.2, subsection 6, items A-F, the PTRC will rank faculty performance as "Successful," or "In Need of Concentrated Development Efforts." Guidelines for these ranking categories are provided below. RATIONALES

(1) This change deletes the "Superior" rating category. PTR can best accomplish its aims by recognizing a variety of successful achievements and contributions to the mission of UNCA among the differing senior members of the faculty within the "Successful" category. Other university-wide committees recognize superior faculty achievements through the Feldman Professorship, the Distinguished Teaching Awards, the new awards for Distinguished Scholarship/Creative Work, and the like. A two-tier rating system was proposed by the initial UNCA PTR Task Force and further urged by many faculty members who were evaluated by the PTR process in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. VCAA Cochran recently determined that the General Administration has approved a two-tier rating system at other UNC institutions. (2) The phase "in need of concentrated development efforts" reflects the language of the policy.

Although it is suggested that a minority of faculty would be ranked as "superior," a majority as "adequate," and a small minority (or none at all) as "in need of development," the ranking should be based first and foremost on the quality of the faculty member's performance. The concrete bases for ranking are to be determined by the PTRC in the context of their reviews, however, the Committee must makes its judgements in accordance with UNCA's evaluation standards. UNCA evaluates performance in four interrelated areas:

1. teaching;

2. contributions to one's discipline including scholarship/creative activity and service to the profession;

3. service to UNCA (department and university); and

4. community service in the area of one's expertise.

To encourage the development of a well-rounded faculty in the context of UNCA's teaching mission, PTR evaluations will emphasize and reward excellent teaching balanced by diverse contributions in the other areas.

Delete above. Replace with following:

UNCA evaluates faculty performance in several interrelated areas: (1) teaching, as noted; (2) scholarship/creative activity and service to the profession; and (3) service to the department, to the university and to the community in the area of professional expertise.

To encourage the development of a well-rounded faculty in the context of UNCA's teaching mission, PTR evaluations will emphasize excellent teaching balanced by diverse contributions in other areas. Successful teaching will be the foremost criterion. The evaluation of teaching contributions may give weight to excellence in contributions beyond the classroom when this is evident in the dossier - the mentoring of students in research, creative curriculum or program design, contributions to general education and the like.

RATIONALE

Deletes reference to a "superior" category and to four areas of evaluation. The enumeration of "four interrelated areas" in the original version gave rise to perceptions that community service was a separate category of service that was equal in weight to teaching in the evaluation of UNCA faculty. The new paragraph better aligns the PTR guidelines with UNCA standards. Contributions to educating students beyond the classroom should be valued when they are evident in the dossier.

Since UNCA is primarily a teaching institution, to be ranked "superior", the materials submitted by the faculty member must provide clear evidence of "superior" performance in the classroom. In addition the faculty member must be outstanding in at least two of the other three areas of responsibility. In all areas the faculty member must have performed in a manner that significantly contributes to their discipline and the university and its mission.

"Superior" is defined as excellent or outstanding performance that is clearly above the norm and thus considered exceptional. As a general guideline, less than one-third to one-fourth of the faculty being reviewed in any given year should be ranked as "superior." The "superior" ranking is reserved for those teachers who have clearly and consistently demonstrated remarkable and outstanding performance in the classroom, and have also made exceptional contributions in other areas, thus demonstrating a balanced contribution to the university and its mission.

Delete the two paragraphs above.

RATIONALE: Superfluous in a two-tier rating system.

Adequate

To be ranked "adequate," the materials submitted by the faculty member must indicate "good" teaching balanced by solid performance and contributions in at least one of the other areas listed above.. "Adequate" contributions are defined as solid performance in the classroom, that is, satisfactory according to UNCA's high standards and sufficient, satisfactory, or acceptable performance in other areas. This ranking will be applied to faculty who perform as expected with consistently good teaching and persistent activity in either scholarship/artistic activity or in one of the two aspects of service.

Replace the rating term "Adequate" with "Successful." Replace above with:

SUCCESSFUL

To be ranked Successful, the materials submitted by the faculty member will indicate good teaching on a consistent basis balanced by contributions to one or more of the areas indicated above - scholarship/creative work, and service. Teaching contributions may include those outside the classroom when they are evident in the dossier, as described above. Within this category, the PTRC Report may acknowledge specific excellent performances and exemplary contributions in any area.

Post-Tenure Review is not a process of repeated tenure evaluations. Thus the PTRC Committee will apply criteria which follow from the prime purpose of PTR as stated by the General Administration of the UNC - to "ensure faculty development and promote faculty vitality."

In Need of Development

The materials provided by the faculty member assigned to this category indicate the person needs to improve their performance. Any person whose teaching falls below UNCA's standards must automatically be assigned to this category. In addition, good teachers with no record of contributions to their discipline, UNCA, or UNCA's community will also be placed in the "in need of development" category.

This ranking is defined as: falling short of standard expectations and thus requiring improvement because the demonstrated performance is unsatisfactory. To be placed in this category, there must be evidence of consistent deficiency over the five-year period of review. It is expected that few if any faculty will be ranked as "in need of development." An "in need of development" rating indicates that had the person submitted such materials at the time of a renewal or tenure decision they would not have received a favorable decision.

Replace the two paragraphs above and the "In Need of Development" heading, rewrite paragraphs as shown:

Needs Concentrated Development Efforts

This category is defined as: falling short of standard expectations and thus requiring improvement because the demonstrated performance is unsatisfactory. To be placed in this category, there must be evidence of consistent deficiency over the five-year period of review.

RATIONALE

The new heading uses the wording of the policy document. The comparison with an unfavorable tenure decision is deleted since PTR is not a repeating tenure evaluation. The paragraphs are reordered for easier reading. Successful tenured faculty members make contributions to the mission of UNCA which go beyond their teaching.

2. Appropriate Award for Superior Ranking (Section 3.12.3, subsection 3)

Faculty who earn a ranking of "superior" will receive a monetary award consistent with that which is given for tenure and promotion.

Delete point 2 above.

RATIONALE:

Superfluous if "Superior" ranking is eliminated.

3. Procedure for PTR Committee Feedback on Process of Review

Each year before the end of the spring semester but following the completion of post-tenure reviews of faculty, the PTRC will reexamine Sections 3.12.2 and 3.12.3 of the PTR policy. With the goals of maximizing efficient and effective decisions, the PTRC will submit recommendations for potential revisions of the PTR procedure as well as the guidelines for ranking to the FWDC. Further, to the extent that is reasonable and generalizable year to year, the PTRC will provide operationalized guidelines for the four ranking categories.

FWDC will consider these recommendations and bring to the Senate any proposed changes no later than the second meeting of the fall semester. Any changes in the procedure can then be established prior to the instigation of further post-tenure review processes or decisions.

PROPOSED REVISION: Re-number and rewrite paragraph above as follows:

2. Procedure for Improving Post-Tenure Review
Each year before the end of the spring semester but following the completion of post-tenure reviews of faculty, the PTRC will reexamine the provisions of the PTR policy. With the goal of bettering the PTR process, the PTRC will recommend potential improvements to the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) for further review, allowing the possibility of Senate action in the following Fall semester.

RATIONALE:
The Senate should continue to provide for active monitoring of this new process.