Senate of the Urbana-Champaign Campus, University of Illinois

XTI.99.03
May 3, 1999

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
URBANA-CHAMPAIGN SENATE

(Final Report; Action)

XTI.99.03 Recommendations of the ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee regarding a System of Periodic Faculty Review

This report is a revision of XTI.99.03 (Final Report;Information) which was discussed at
the March 22 Senate meeting. Today's report, the "second reading" of XTI.99.03, includes
changes made in response to comments and suggestions from the March 22 "first reading", as well as
amendments approved at the April 26 Senate meeting. The recommended policy statement (set out in bold
typeface) and its background and explanation follow.

The ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee recommends that the Senate adopt the following policy statement:

POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING A SYSTEM OF PERIODIC FACULTY REVIEW

A fair, effective, and efficient system of periodic faculty review, separate and apart from the rigorous tenure decision, is important in many ways. Such a system is essential to effective administration of merit salary increases, appropriate recognition of outstanding faculty in other ways, early detection of developing problems and constructive follow-up, timely and collegial assistance to faculty considering changes in academic emphasis, and to assure the public that faculty are accountable in ways appropriate to a university community. The system of faculty review described below should be implemented by the provost.

I. Mandated Annual Reviews of Faculty
- A. Each academic unit shall review annually the contributions of its faculty to the mission of the unit and of the campus. [Note: The word "unit" denotes the department or other primary locus of a faculty member's appointment.]
- B. The annual faculty review shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures developed by each unit. These procedures shall be approved in accordance with the unit's bylaws, supplied thereafter to all new faculty, and filed with the college, or with the Office of the Provost for units reporting directly to that office. [Note: The phrase "elected faculty body" refers to the executive committee in a department organized with a chair, to the advisory committee in a department organized with a head, to equivalent bodies in other units, or to a small committee elected by the unit faculty for the specific purpose of periodic review.]
- C. These annual faculty review procedures shall meet at least the following campus-wide requirements regarding content. They shall:
  1. Contain a statement of the unit's mission and expectations of faculty contributions to that mission.
  2. Require each faculty member to provide a written statement of accomplishments and professional activities during the past year (or other time period specified by the unit), plans for the future, and a brief explanation of the connection between his or her activities and the unit's mission and expectations.
  3. Require that the unit executive officer (UEO) provide feedback to each faculty member regarding the assessment of how well the faculty member is meeting expectations. In appropriate circumstances, the UEO should meet with a faculty member to discuss the faculty member's statement and give a detailed response. In other circumstances, simply advising the faculty member of the unit's salary recommendation could be sufficient. [Note, UEO denotes the "head" in a department so organized, the "chair" in a department organized with a chair, and their equivalent in other units. Where the actions of a UEO would require the exercise of authority vested in an executive committee and not delegated to the UEO, the meaning of UEO also includes the executive committee.]
  4. Require that the UEO maintain a permanent file for each faculty member containing annual statements, copies of written feedback from the UEO to the faculty member, and a copy of any report from a broader review (described below). The contents of this file shall be open to the faculty member. This file is a personnel record intended for internal use, including review by academic peers. Its content is to be protected from public disclosure to the extent allowed by law.
- D. Broader Review:
  A broader review of the faculty member's contributions and professional activities can be undertaken as provided below, or in accordance with procedures adopted by the unit acting in accordance with its bylaws. Any procedure adopted by the unit as a substitute for the procedures described below must provide that the broader review can be initiated by the faculty member or the UEO, will be undertaken by a committee which includes faculty peers, and will include an examination of the faculty member's annual written statements of accomplishments and professional activities. The broader review is intended to supplement and not preclude other personnel procedures which are available.
  1. Such broader review can be initiated by the UEO, if warranted, based on the faculty member's record as reflected in the annual review or reviews, or by the faculty member. To initiate the broader review, the UEO or the faculty member would send a written request to the unit's elected faculty body.
  2. When requested, the unit's elected faculty body shall appoint a review committee which shall include at least three tenured faculty, including at least one member from outside the unit if the faculty member so requests. The faculty member under review and the UEO shall have an opportunity to suggest or object to names of potential members before the review committee members are selected. (Alternatively, if the request is initiated by the faculty member and the matter would be more appropriately handled by the unit's grievance committee, the elected faculty body may return the request to the faculty member and suggest that a grievance be filed.)
  3. The review committee shall have access to the faculty member's file described in paragraph I.C.4 and may meet individually with the faculty member, the UEO, and others. The committee shall report in writing its judgement as to whether the faculty member is exceeding, meeting, or falling short of expectations. The report shall be distributed only to the UEO and the faculty member. This committee could also be involved in developing a remediation plan (e.g., providing advice on teaching improvement or encouraging new research directions).
- E. Unit executive officer (UEO) follow-up to the annual or broader review
  1. The UEO should consider if steps, in addition to the salary recommendation, are warranted in response to the annual review or report from a review committee. Before any action is taken, these steps shall be discussed with the faculty member and, as may be appropriate and warranted, with the unit's elected faculty body and the dean.
  2. If a case has been made for a more substantial recognition of merit, the UEO shall explore ways in which this might be accomplished.
  3. If a faculty member's performance is deemed to fall below the unit's expectations, the reasons should be explored with the faculty member. If problems have arisen because of inadequate institutional support for the faculty member's teaching, research, or service, ways of addressing these problems should be explored. When appropriate, the UEO and the faculty member shall create a mutually agreeable plan to take into account changes in interests or activity or to address any specific deficiencies. The plan shall be explicit with respect to both expectations and the time by which these are to be met. The plan shall be in writing, signed by both parties, placed in the faculty member's personnel file, and monitored as an explicit part of future annual or broader reviews. Additional forms of monitoring also may be included in the plan.
  4. If a plan cannot be agreed upon, or if such a plan has been ineffective in the past, the UEO, in consultation with the reviewing committee, the unit's elected faculty body, the dean, and others as may be appropriate (e.g., legal counsel), shall take steps to resolve the situation. If appropriate, mediation may be considered. If a mutually agreeable resolution cannot be achieved, other actions shall be pursued, including reassignment of duties or initiation of sanction proceedings. Any such action must conform to the standards and procedures of applicable University Statutes and General Rules.
II. Periodic Review of Each Unit's Faculty Review System
- A. Every academic unit's faculty review procedures shall be evaluated every five to seven years, or within such other period as may be adopted for a more general review of units, to assure that: (1) it has conveyed a clear sense of its expectations for faculty contributions, (2) it has conducted its annual reviews (and follow-up) in conformity with policy governing the manner and content of such reviews, and (3) it has applied its standards fairly and evenhandedly.
- B. Evaluation Guidelines
  1. Committee Appointment and Charge: For each academic unit to be reviewed, the dean of the college or other appropriate administrative officer (e.g. the provost for units that report directly to that office) shall appoint a committee consisting of tenured faculty, a majority of whom will normally not be members of the unit, and charged to carry out the periodic review.
  2. Review Process: The committee shall examine the unit's procedures for faculty review and at least a sample of the dossiers compiled by the unit's annual reviews. The committee may inspect other relevant documents or conduct interviews it deems appropriate. The goals are to assure that the unit has met the conditions specified in paragraph A, or to assist the unit by identifying changes needed to bring the procedures into compliance.
  3. Reporting Responsibilities: The committee shall prepare a report, for submission to the appointing authority, on whether the unit's procedures for faculty review are in compliance and, if not in compliance, what corrective steps need to be taken. A copy of the report shall be supplied to the UEO and to the elected faculty body.
  4. Incorporation into a general unit review: This periodic review procedure should be incorporated into a more general review of the unit when a more general unit review is conducted.
******************************************************************************
The ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee offers the following background and explanation for the policy statement recommended above:
1. Why are recommendations regarding a System of periodic faculty review being presented to the Senate for adoption?
Systems of faculty review, including various versions of "Post Tenure Review," have been adopted or are under consideration at many universities. (See "Summary: Licata and Morreale on Post Tenure Review: Policies, Practices, Precautions" located on the following web site: http://www.uiuc.edu/providers/senate/tenure.asp .) The public at large, university boards of trustees, and the academic community all have a keen interest in issues of faculty review. It is the sense of the ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee that our existing system of faculty review can be improved, and that the most effective improvements to that system can be fashioned from within the UIUC academic community as represented by the Senate.
2. Why did the ad hoc committee reject the idea of including a formal review of every tenured faculty member (with a few exceptions) every five to seven years?
The committee spent considerable time identifying and debating the advantages and disadvantages of these systems, in the context of this unique campus. The committee also invited feedback from the academic community on a thoughtful draft proposal which would require a formal review of tenured faculty every five to seven years. In the end, a majority of the committee members concluded that a system mandating an additional faculty review every five to seven years should not be recommended at this time. Such a system would be largely redundant, its costs would exceed its incremental benefits, it would encourage less rigor in the all-important tenure decision, and the benefits of such a system could be captured in other less costly ways. The committee noted that other universities, e.g., the University of Michigan, have not adopted such a system. The committee found virtually no support for such a system among faculty and unit executive officers, and believes that acceptance of such a system at the unit level would be essential in order for such a system to provide any benefits.
3. Why did the ad hoc committee reject the idea of simply recommending a continuation of our existing procedures?
The committee gathered data about the existing faculty review processes on this campus, queried faculty and administrators about how these systems were functioning, and reflected on the collective experience of committee members with these existing systems. The committee observed that annual reviews associated with salary increment decisions were working well in most, but not all, units. The committee concluded that this campus could be more effective with faculty review, building on existing strengths, and that merely recommending a continuation of existing procedures was not an appropriate recommendation. The committee also noted that systems of faculty review are undergoing increased public scrutiny; therefore, moving forward with well reasoned and appropriate improvements is especially timely.
4. How does the recommended system relate to other existing mechanisms of faculty review and accountability?
Other review mechanisms help to ensure the continuing quality of UIUC faculty. These review mechanisms begin with the initial hiring decision, a process designed to select strong candidates for tenure. UIUC data for three Academic Years (1992-1994) suggest that only about 1% of the applicants for tenure track positions, and less than 20% or the finalists, are actually appointed as assistant professors. (REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SEMINAR ON TENURE, Part IV - The Operation of Tenure: Academic Practice, February 1997.)
The tenure process is another review and quality control mechanism of enormous significance. A UIUC assistant professor encounters at least one full-scale review during the probationary period. And at the time of the promotion and tenure decision, the review of teaching, scholarship, and service is extensive, matched only at the point of promotion to professor. The combined effect of these rigorous hiring and tenure-related reviews is significant - tenure is earned only by those faculty members who show promise of becoming nationally and internationally renowned in their fields. For those who earn tenure, a continuing obligation arises - to demonstrate high standards of academic and professional conduct, and to discharge one's university duties responsibly, throughout one's academic career.
A third review mechanism has been imbedded in the salary administration process. In most units, faculty members complete annual reports of accomplishments which are reviewed and evaluated. These evaluations provide the basis for any merit salary increase. The very nature of academic work also subjects faculty to continuing internal and external evaluation. Faculty teach in a highly public arena, involving constant student, and often peer, evaluation. The proposals, ideas, and conclusions of faculty engaged in research are constantly undergoing peer review. Faculty who carry significant public service responsibilities are also subject to continuing appraisal by the public.
The System of Periodic Faculty Review herein recommended is intended to complement, not duplicate, existing faculty review mechanisms noted above. It recognizes implicitly that faculty participating in the faculty review system either are in their probationary period, thereby undergoing intense review, or have been granted tenure, thereby having demonstrated promise of excellence in their academic careers. The purpose of this System of Periodic Faculty Review, therefore, is not so much to "weed out" the incompetent or those unlikely to succeed in academe. Rather, its purpose is primarily to provide an information base for salary decisions, encourage appropriate recognition of outstanding faculty, foster early detection of developing problems and effective remediation, provide timely and collegial assistance to faculty considering potential changes in academic emphasis, and to assure the public that faculty are continuously accountable in ways appropriate to a university community. To achieve these multiple goals, the recommended system builds on the existing strengths of the salary-related annual review process rather than duplicating it through another layer of review.
5. Why did the committee recommend what it did?
Mandated Annual Reviews. Although existing systems of annual faculty review work quite effectively in most units, several improvements need to be made if these systems are to provide an adequate basis for salary decisions, faculty recognition, early recognition of problems, and collegial problem-solving. Few units have formally articulated their expectations for faculty; not all units have a formalized system of gathering information about faculty accomplishments; little formal guidance is provided about possibilities where early follow-up could be helpful; suggested procedures for additional reviews by faculty peers are generally not included.
The recommendation is intended to address each of these opportunities for improvement. The recommended policy requires that each unit have a written annual faculty review process which meets campus-wide standards. It also recognizes that different units have different cultures and allows much "local choice" regarding details of the unit's annual review system. It outlines potential follow-up steps which can be taken by the UEO, once again with the goal of fostering effective problem-solving at the unit level. It provides for an additional, broader review, either initiated by the faculty member or the UEO, to be carried out by faculty. This review could address perceived problems ranging from under-recognition of achievement to under-fulfillment of expectations for faculty, and its primary focus should be collegial problem-solving. Describing such a procedure provides guidance to the UEO and encourages early intervention while problems are still solvable. Providing for a broader review is intended to capture the benefits, both to the faculty member and to the institution, of the more traditional "post tenure review" process, but without the high cost of subjecting all faculty to the process. Therefore, this provision also helps to assure the public that the System of Periodic Faculty Review is just as effective as other kinds of "post tenure review."
Periodic Review of Each Unit's Faculty Review System. A unit's annual faculty review system must be procedurally rigorous, fair and even-handed in application. Only then can the UEO (and, in some units, the elected faculty advisory body) be fully informed of the degree to which faculty have satisfied the institution's educational, research, and public service objectives; only then can the evaluation be a meaningful basis for salary decisions and, if appropriate, additional follow-up; and only then can the public feel assured that faculty are accountable in ways appropriate to a university community. The recommended periodic review of each unit's faculty review system is intended to assure that the system is being properly administered at the unit level. Such a periodic review of each unit every five to seven years is believed to be a far better use of the institution's limited resources than the more onerous task of conducting an additional review of every tenured faculty member every five to seven years.
6. How costly will these recommendations be when adopted?
The costs will be minimal for units with an effective annual review process already in place. Units will need to review their procedures in light of the minimum campus standards, but these standards are not onerous and would be good practices in any event. Many units will need to develop a statement of mission and faculty expectations; these are probably implicitly understood already. The written procedures will need to be formally adopted, but this can be done either by the faculty or by the elected faculty advisory body. For individual faculty, following these procedures should not be any more burdensome than the current practice of submitting annual reports of accomplishments. And for a UEO the routine administration of the system should not be overly burdensome either. By building on the existing system of annual faculty reviews, the proposed System of Periodic Faculty Review minimizes the additional burdens on both faculty and administrators, and this is in sharp contrast to the burden of other faculty review options. The periodic review of each unit is a new activity but it should be accomplished efficiently, perhaps in the context of other periodic reviews. And it does help assure that the system of faculty review is being carried out effectively at the unit level, and this should mean that other problems surrounding salary administration, etc., are being avoided or otherwise resolved more expeditiously. The benefits should exceed the additional costs.
7. What process has lead to the recommendations being presented?
The process has been thorough, deliberative, open, and inquisitive. The committee was constituted with broad academic representation, including cross-membership with the Senate's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, General University Policy Committee, Senate Council, and Senates Conference. The committee and Senate Council have solicited insights from senators, department heads & chairs, deans, and the entire UIUC academic community. Three "Committee of the Whole" discussions have been or will be held on the Senate floor. The experiences of other universities have been reviewed. Alternative strategies have been identified and debated. The existing processes of faculty review at UIUC have been examined. And out of this deliberative process a consensus recommendation has emerged within the committee.
See the earlier reports of the committee:
XTI.98.01 First Report of the Senate Council ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee, March 30, 1998;
XTI.99.01 Report of the Tenure Issues Committee, September 14, 1998;
XTI.99.02 Tenure Issues Committee Update and Draft Recommendations, February 15, 1999;
XTI.99.03 Recommendations of the ad hoc Tenure Issues Committee regarding a System of Periodic Faculty Review, March 22, 1999 (First Reading)
See also the web page created early in the process and maintained by the senate office: Post Tenure Review at UIUC: a Document Index, (http://www.uiuc.edu/providers/senate/tenure.asp).
Respectfully submitted by the committee,

Geneva Belford
Renee Clift
Elizabeth Delacruz
Matt Finkin
Fred Giertz
Michael Grossman
C. Ward Henson
Keith Hjelmstad
Carl Jones
Susan Larson
Edward Shoben
Ron Sousa
-------------------
Don Uchtmann, Chair

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Senate