In accordance with the Regents’ "Guidelines for Periodic Performance Evaluation ofTenured 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:
Specific Policies and Procedures:
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:
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):
a. A peer review committee will be formed in each department (This committee could also serve as the Appointment Promotion and Tenure Committee).
This Committee will consist of either:
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):
The School of Medicine Faculty Performance Evaluation peer review committee will review the materials and recommendations forwarded from the department and will submit the results of their deliberations in writing to the dean, department chair, and the faculty member.
This committee will consist of twelve (12) faculty from the School of Medicine, of which six will be clinical faculty and six will be basic science faculty. Fifty (50 %) percent of each of the clinical and basic science faculty will be elected by the School of Medicine faculty and the remaining faculty will be appointed by the dean. This committee will consist of tenured Full Professors. Faculty will be excluded from the committee if they concurrently serve on the School of Medicine Appointment Promotion & Tenure committee or are departmental chairs. The committee will be elected in the same way as other elected Faculty of Medicine committees and follow the same governance procedures as the School of Medicine Appointment Promotion & Tenure committee.
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.
-by the dean, in conjunction with the faculty member and department chair, and
-other appropriate administrative officials.
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.
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.