Implementation Plan for Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

School of Medicine

The University of Texas Medical Branch

In accordance with the Regents’ "Guidelines for Periodic Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty," this document provides policies and procedures for the periodic performance evaluation of tenured faculty members in the School of Medicine at UTMB. Periodic evaluation is intended to enhance and protect, not diminish, the important guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. The purpose of periodic evaluation is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate; and to assure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to the University and the State of Texas. These guidelines are intended to maintain a balance of emphasis on teaching, research, service, and other duties appropriate for each faculty member. These guidelines shall not be interpreted or applied to infringe on the tenure system, academic freedom, due process, or other protected rights; nor to establish new term-tenure systems or to require faculty to re-establish their credentials for tenure.

General Policies and Procedures:

• The annual performance evaluation of tenured faculty will continue, but a comprehensive periodic evaluation of all tenured faculty will be performed every six years in place of the annual evaluation for that year (except in rare circumstances such as overlap with approved leave, promotion or other comprehensive review, or review for appointment to an endowed position). Additionally, according to long-standing Rules and Regulations of the Board of Regents, review for termination for good cause is possible at any time. Due process procedures must be followed.

 

• The evaluation shall include review of the performance of the faculty member’s duties such as teaching, research, service, and, for faculty with clinical responsibilities, patient care.

 

• Reasonable individual notice of at least six months of intent to review will be provided to the faculty member.

 

• The evaluation of the faculty member shall include a summary of professional accomplishments, teaching evaluations, and previous annual evaluations.

 

• The initial evaluation of the faculty member’s performance will be carried out at the department level by a peer review process, but in any event must be reported to the chair (or equivalent) and dean for review. Evaluation shall include review of the current resume¢ , student and peer evaluations of teaching for the review period, annual reports for the review period, and all materials submitted by the faculty member.

 

• Results of the evaluation will be communicated in writing to the faculty member, the department chair and the dean.

1. Review schedule
1. Review shall be performed six years after the date that tenure was awarded and every six years, hereafter, except:
1. Approved leave, promotion, review for appointment to endowed position, or other comprehensive review shall delay the review date no more than one year.
2. Individual to be reviewed shall be given notice of intent to review at least six months prior to review.
3. The six-year evaluation will take the place of the annual performance review during that year.
2. Materials to be reviewed:
1. Faculty resume¢ (i.e. curriculum vitae in standard University format), including summary statement of professional accomplishments.
2. Annual reports encompassing the review period.
3. List of teaching duties and teaching evaluations.
1. Student evaluations for the review period, including medical student, resident, fellow, and graduate student and/or other applicable groups.
2. Peer evaluations.
4. A list of service activities

III. Evaluation criteria

The composition of categories to be reviewed will vary based on the faculty member’s department and their individual responsibilities within that department. The weighting of the individual categories to be reviewed will be based upon goals and objectives previously agreed upon by the faculty member and departmental chair.

The evaluation will be based upon a composite evaluation of the faculty’s performance (extent and quality) in each of the following categories:

1. Teaching
2. Research/Advancing Knowledge
3. Patient care/Clinical Activities
4. Administration
5. Mentoring of faculty, post-graduate students, graduate students and medical students
6. Service -- to the University, Professional Societies and granting organizations

IV. Evaluation process: the evaluation will be performed in two stages:

The faculty member has the right to address the appropriate committees at either stage of the evaluation process.

1) First stage (Department):

1) all tenured faculty or

2) at least 6 tenured faculty, of which at least 50% are elected by departmental faculty

b. Review and summary evaluation by the departmental peer review committee using materials to be reviewed under section II above.

c. Summary evaluation by the departmental chair.

d. Summary evaluations by both the departmental committee and the departmental chair shall then be submitted to the faculty member.

e. If a faculty member receives a favorable evaluation from both the chairman and departmental committee, then this review will be forwarded to the dean. If the faculty member receives an unfavorable evaluation from either or both the chairman or the departmental committee, the evaluations from the departmental committee and the chair and all other materials used in the initial review will be forwarded to the School of Medicine Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee for a second review.

2) Second stage (School):

V. Re-evaluation:

If the School of Medicine Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee determines that the faculty member’s performance is unsatisfactory, then the committee must provide a clear statement of areas of deficiency to the faculty member and the departmental chairman. Subsequently, the faculty member and the department chair will develop, in writing, a plan for faculty development. This plan will be submitted for approval to the dean.

 

1. Re-evaluation shall be performed 2 years after the approval of the faculty development plan using the same two stages of the evaluation process.

 

2. If this re-evaluation is still unsatisfactory, appropriate action will be determined

For individuals found to be performing unsatisfactorily, review to determine if good cause exists for termination under the current Regents’ Rules and Regulations may be considered. All proceedings for termination of tenured faculty on the basis of periodic performance evaluation shall be only for incompetency, neglect of duty or other good cause shown and must be conducted in accordance with the due process procedures of the Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 6 including an opportunity for referral of the matter to alternative dispute resolution. Such proceedings must also include a list of specific charges by the chief administrative officer and an opportunity for a hearing before a faculty tribunal. In all such cases, the burden of proof shall be on the institution, and the rights of a faculty member to due process and academic freedom shall be protected.

VI. Appeals Process

An appeals process is built into the performance evaluation by virtue of a two-tiered peer-review mechanism (i.e. Department & School of Medicine) with the opportunity for the faculty member to personally address either or both committees. If the decisions of the Department and School of Medicine committee are in agreement, then there will be no further appeal. If there is disagreement between the Department and the School of Medicine Faculty Performance Evaluation Committee, then either the faculty member and/or the department chair could appeal the decision to the dean. In addition, if a suitable faculty development plan cannot be agreed upon between the faculty member and the department chair, then the dean will oversee the process.

7. Phase-In Period

Since there will be a significant number of faculty tenured for six years or greater, a phase-in process is required. The initial evaluation of this particular group of faculty will consist of volunteers for the first two years. This will require approximately 15% of those faculty to volunteer for each of these first two years. Thereafter, starting with the third year, approximately 25% of the remaining faculty will be reviewed per year. The mechanism of the selection of the faculty will be at the discretion of each individual department chair. All other faculty reviews will occur at six year intervals based on their initial year of tenure. Review dates may vary based on the exceptions detailed under "General Policies". An alternate plan will be used if there is an insufficient number of volunteers. In this case, all faculty in this group will be evaluated on their 6-year anniversary (or any increment of 6 years) of their tenure date.

Return to Faculty Information