Post-Tenure Review Procedures
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
Unit Approval: May 17, 2000
The procedures given below are meant to be in compliance with the regulations on post-tenure review established in the University Faculty Manual. If there is any conflict between the procedures given in this document and the regulations given in the University Faculty Manual, the University Faculty Manual will take precedence. The departmental post-tenure review calendar will follow the calendar established by the Provost.
II. Faculty Eligible for Post-Tenure
Review[*]
Each tenured faculty member, regardless of rank, will be reviewed every six years unless, during the previous six year period, the faculty member was promoted, or appointed to or retained in a chaired professorship. However, post-tenure review will be waived for any faculty member who notifies the department chair in writing of retirement within three years of the next scheduled review.
A department post-tenure review committee (referred to hereafter as the departmental committee) will be formed for the faculty member being reviewed and will consist of all other tenured faculty members of equal or higher rank, including the department chair. If there are fewer than five eligible faculty members, the department chair, in consultation with members of the departmental committee will select faculty members from outside the department to form a committee of at least five members. The chair of the departmental committee will be elected by the members of the departmental committee. A departmental committee member on sabbatical leave may participate in the review process if written notification is provided to the Dean of the College prior to the review.
IV. File Documentation
The faculty member being reviewed must submit a post-tenure review file consisting of the following material:
A. Teaching
1. A listing of all courses taught in the previous six years.
2. Student course evaluations for each of the courses listed.
3.
Peer evaluations of teaching.
B. Scholarship
A listing and copies of all
scholarly activities and information about funding for research
received during the previous six years.
Scholarly activities will be evaluated by peers outside the unit
(although not necessarily outside the University). Refereed publications or other reviewed research may be
considered as having been peer-reviewed outside the unit.
C. Service
A listing of all service activities conducted during the previous six years.
D. Annual Evaluations
A summary of all annual performance reviews accumulated since the initial tenure review or since the last post-tenure review.
E. Sabbatical Reports
A copy of the faculty member’s official sabbatical leave activities report and detailed information about the outcomes of any sabbatical leave awarded during the previous six years.
F.
Current Vita
V. Departmental Committee Procedures
A. The chair of the departmental committee will ensure that the meetings of the departmental committee are held in a timely manner sufficient to meet the post-tenure review calendar set by the Provost.
B. Each member of the departmental committee will perform a review of the faculty member’s file and complete a written evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance. This evaluation will rate the faculty member’s performance as superior, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
C. The above performance rating terms are defined as follows:
1. Superior performance means performance at the very highest level.
2. Satisfactory performance means performance that meets the expectations of the unit.
3. Unsatisfactory performance means performance, taken as a whole, which fails to meet unit standards.
D. The chair of the departmental committee will collect and tally the performance evaluations from the departmental committee members.
E. The chair of the departmental committee will prepare a summary report of the departmental committee’s overall assessment of the faculty member’s performance; the report may include suggestions to aid the faculty member in professional growth and development. A finding of “superior” or “unsatisfactory” in the report must be supported by at least two-thirds of the committee; otherwise the finding will be “satisfactory.”
F. A copy of the departmental committee report will be given to the faculty member and will be retained permanently by the department chair and the dean. In the event of an unsatisfactory review, a copy of the departmental committee report and development plan will also be sent to the Provost.
G. If the performance rating of the faculty member is either superior or satisfactory, the evaluation of the faculty member will be concluded with the distribution of the report. If the departmental committee determines that the faculty member’s overall performance is unsatisfactory, the faculty member, in consultation with the departmental committee, must produce a development plan for restoring performance to a satisfactory level.
H. An Unsatisfactory Review
1.
An unsatisfactory review will be noted in the faculty
member’s personnel file and forwarded through the department chair to the dean,
together with recommendations for restoring
performance to the satisfactory level.
The time for restoring satisfactory performance will normally be between
one and three years.
2. A faculty member who receives an unsatisfactory review and disagrees with the evaluation or recommendations may appeal of any aspect of findings to the departmental committee. The findings of the departmental committee, together with its recommendations for action and a statement by the faculty member will be forwarded through the department chair to the dean for final determination of the evaluation.
3.
The faculty member will establish a development plan in
consultation with and with the concurrence of the departmental committee and
the department chair. If a development
plan cannot be established, the faculty member may appeal to the dean. The development plan will form the basis for
future evaluation of the faculty member.
4. At the next annual review, the chair of the departmental committee will prepare a written assessment of the progress of the faculty member. This assessment will be forwarded to the department chair, who will review it and state in writing either concurrence or dissent. The written assessment prepared by the departmental committee and the written review prepared by the department chair will be forwarded to the dean; copies of these documents will be provided to the faculty member. The dean will make the final determination on progress, or the lack thereof, and whether further measures may be necessary.
[*] The Faculty Manual requires the dean to review the department chair in consultation with the faculty of the department.