The intention of the School of Pharmacy (SOP) is to provide a post tenure review (PTR) policy that is in compliment with Faculty Policy and Procedures (FPP) 17.17 while at the same time being tailored to the tenured faculty in the SOP. Foremost is the desire to be cognizant of the need to provide a policy that fairly assesses the professional competence and duties associated with the faculty’s position. As specified in FPP 17.17 B, this policy addresses the assessment and progress in teaching, service, outreach/extension and research/scholarly productivity as appropriate to the field.
Each of the bullet points regarding the post tenure review, as provided in the provost’s email dated April 24, 2017, are addressed below:
- The PTR committee will consist of two tenured faculty members from the Faculty Activities Review (FAR) Committee. Note: The FAR committee members are elected each year by the Executive Committee to do the annual reviews of all faculty in the SOP. The two members of the FAR will be from the same division as the faculty member undergoing their five year post tenure review. If the faculty member under review rejects one or both of those chosen for their PTR committee, the chair of their respective division will bring to the Executive Committee, for vote of approval, alternative tenured faculty member(s) from their division. Note in the event a small division has only few tenured faculty members, a tenured faculty member of the FAR committee from another division will be appointed to be on their PTR committee.
- The criteria used to assess performance in the areas of teaching, service, outreach/extension, and research/ scholarly productivity will be based on comparison to the respective division ’s expectation s in each of those areas. The expectations will be adjusted for any particular faculty member to reflect their position. For example, a faculty member heavily involved in administrative activities would not be expected to have as high of research/scholarly and/or teaching loads as indicated by the expectation s values in those respective areas. All faculty undergoing review will be required to provide a current curriculum vitae, annual activity reports for the previous five years, current peer teaching and student evaluations or summary evaluations, and any other evidence of the faculty member’s accomplishments and contributions that the division, SOP or faculty member feel relevant to the review. For example, named chairs and professorships, major teaching awards, and national/international professional honors or awards. Letters from outside the university would not normally be part of the review process. The faculty member under review, however, may submit appropriate letters if she or he so chooses.
- The timeline will be consistent with the timeline specified in FPP 17.7 D.2. Reviews will be conducted in the fall semester with all reviews and responses completed and reported to the dean no later than the first business day in March. In addition, the timeline specified in FPP 7.17.C will be followed.
- The procedure used in appointments of PTR committees for department chairs and other faculty with administrative app ointments will be to select two committee members from the tenured faculty in the FAR with the proviso that one must be a division chair or associate dean. The exception would be that if a chair is undergoing a PTR and rejects one or both of the assigned committee members. Then the dean will bring to the Executive Committee, for vote of approval, alternative tenured faculty members from the chair’s division or another division if the chair comes from a smaller division having only a few tenured faculty members. That said, the PTR committee must have at least one chair or one associate dean.
- The process by which adjustments to the five – year review schedule will be made to the Provost’s office will be that as specified in FPP 17.17.C1. Initially such requests will be submitted by the PTR committee and voted on for approval by the Executive Committee. For example, the PTR committee could recommend that the review be deferred for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with an approved leave, significant life event, promotion review, or other appointment. If deferment is approved by vote at the Executive Committee, the dean would then need to approve the deferment before the request is sent to the provost for final approval.