RSS Icon Twitter icon Facebook icon

Chapter 310: Academic Tenure Regulations

310.015 Procedures for Review of Faculty Performance

Bd. Min. 1-19-01; Amended 11-29-07; Amended 4-12-13.

  1. Non-Regular and Untenured, Regular Faculty. The performance of all non-regular and untenured regular faculty is to be reviewed annually by the appropriate unit supervisor (e.g., department chair, dean, director, etc.) The review should cover the performance for the past year and plans for the coming year. Written evaluations are expected and must be provided to non-regular faculty members where there are concerns about substantial shortcomings in performance. Annual evaluations of untenured faculty members during the probationary period must follow the faculty bylaws governing tenure for each campus (300.010 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Columbia; 300.020 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Kansas City; 300.030 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Rolla; and 300.040 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-St. Louis.)
  2. Tenured Faculty Members. Tenured faculty have proven their ability to contribute significantly in their discipline and to work independently and productively in their field. In this document we affirm and strongly defend the importance of tenure at the University of Missouri. By fostering creativity and protecting academic freedom, tenure safeguards faculty from unfair dismissal based on arbitrary or discriminatory practices, thus encouraging the constant search for truth that is the hallmark of the University. Under this policy or any other university policy, academic tenure should be revoked only with just cause, and may only be done in accordance with the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University, section 310.020.C.1. However, tenure does not protect faculty from the consequences of not performing satisfactorily their duties to the University. It is in the best interest of the faculty as a whole to ensure that each faculty member contributes fully to the institution throughout that individual's career.
    1. Performance Review of Tenured Faculty Not Holding Full-Time Administrative Positions
      1. The tenured faculty of each department or unit will develop and publish minimum standards for overall satisfactory performance.
      2. Every tenured faculty member, including those with part-time administrative positions, will submit a signed annual report describing her/his activities in research, teaching and service. The annual report will be reviewed by the chair. In this document the term chair will be used to mean the appropriate unit director (e.g., chair, unit administrator, area coordinator, etc.) or evaluation committee of the unit following normal unit practices. Chairs will be reviewed annually by the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Provost according to the standards described in B.1.a. Using the standards described in B.1.a, the activities of the faculty member will be rated as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in research, teaching and service, and an overall evaluation of satisfactory or unsatisfactory will be provided. The faculty member will receive this information in a written evaluation. If the overall evaluation is unsatisfactory, there must be a face-to-face discussion of the evaluation between the faculty member and the chair. The faculty member will sign the written evaluation to acknowledge its receipt and may provide a written response to the evaluation. A copy of this signed evaluation will be provided to the faculty member by the chair within a month after the faculty member has signed the evaluation.
      3. At five-year intervals a tenured faculty member will resubmit the annual reports and evaluation statements for the past five years, with a concise summary statement of research, teaching, and service activities for the five-year period, and a current curriculum vita to the chair or evaluation committee of the unit. The first five-year review will be done five years after the tenure decision or the last formal review of the faculty member for promotion to associate professor/full professor. Faculty hired with tenure will be reviewed five years after they are hired.
      4. Based on the five-year report, the chair will evaluate the faculty member's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The five-year evaluation process will be complete with a satisfactory evaluation. If the evaluation is unsatisfactory, then the five-year report will be sent to the appropriate established committee of the department/unit, typically the one that reviews faculty for tenure and promotion. The departmental committee of faculty peers will perform its own full review of the performance of the faculty member over the five-year period and provide an independent assessment of the performance of the faculty member. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the departmental committee judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory.
        (1) Committee Membership
        (a) The evaluation committee may be appointed, elected, or otherwise designated in accordance with the established department, school, or college procedures as long as the procedures are in compliance with the Curators’ rules and regulations. If other than tenured faculty members are included on the committee, only those who are tenured faculty members in the department may participate in the evaluation, except in circumstances described in Section 310.015.B.1.d(1)(b) below which permits others described therein to participate. Committee members may only evaluate faculty members who are at their current rank or below.
        (b) If there are not enough tenured faculty members within the primary department to comprise a committee of three, a special committee shall be formed by the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the provost/vice chancellor for academic affairs. The special committee should be formed by the addition of tenured faculty member(s) from a closely related department or field and/or tenured faculty member(s) from a closely related department or field on other UM campuses, or faculty members(s) emeriti from the primary department in accordance with established procedures and/or retired faculty from the primary department who are part of an established recognition program according to Collected Rules and Regulations of the University, Section 310.075.B. The retired or emeriti faculty serving on the committee shall not be greater than 50% of the committee membership. The committee shall serve as the department-level committee.
      5. In the event that both the chair and the departmental committee determine the performance of a faculty member to be unsatisfactory for the five-year period, the report will be forwarded to the appropriate dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The dean or Vice Provost for Academic Affairs will review the report and provide an assessment of the performance of the faculty member. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory.
      6. At every level of review, the faculty member will be provided with a copy of any written report that is part of these proceedings and will have the right of appeal of any evaluations, decisions, or recommendations to the next level of the process.
    2. Formulation of Development Plan and Assessment of Progress
      1. If a two-thirds majority of the members of the committee of the department/unit and the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, consider the performance of the faculty member to be unsatisfactory, a plan for professional development will be written. This plan will be developed by the faculty member, the department/unit committee or a designated subcommittee, a mutually agreed upon mediator from outside the department, and the chair of the department/unit. This development plan will have clear and attainable objectives for the faculty member and may include a reallocation of the faculty member's effort and a commitment of institutional resources to the plan. This plan will be signed by the faculty member, the chair or unit administrator, the mediator, and the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. The development phase will begin when the necessary resources as described in the development plan are provided.
      2. A faculty member who has received an overall unsatisfactory five-year evaluation by the chair, the departmental committee, and the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs may not appeal the process of developing a professional plan. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the plan that has been developed, he/she may appeal to the next administrative level for help in the formulation of an acceptable development plan.
      3. A faculty member with a plan for professional development will submit an annual progress report to the chair for three successive years after the plan has been initiated. The chair will review the report and provide a written annual evaluation on the progress of the faculty member toward the objectives stated in the development plan. If the chair finds satisfactory progress for any two of the three years, then the process will cease and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.
      4. If the chair does not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the chair will provide the annual reports and evaluations to the department/unit committee and the mediator. If the department/unit committee that includes the mediator finds satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.
      5. If both the chair and the department/unit committee that includes the mediator do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the chair will provide annual reports and evaluations to the dean or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. If the dean or Vice Provost for Academic Affairs finds satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.
      6. If the chair, the department/unit committee that includes the mediator, and the dean, or on campuses with no schools or colleges, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years, then the five-year evaluations plus the three years of progress reports and evaluations by the chair on the development plan will be forwarded to the campus committee on Tenure and Promotion and to the Provost or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Each will review the reports and will recommend separately to the Chancellor that: 1) an additional two-year development plan be written and implemented in consultation with the faculty member and the originating departmental committee, or 2) the faculty member be considered for dismissal of cause proceedings (see section 3.)
      7. Any faculty member may request participation in a formal development plan (as described in 2a) after two or more consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations. In addition, chairs will strongly encourage faculty who have had three consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations to participate in a development plan.
    3. Dismissal for Cause
      1. If it is deemed by the Chancellor that the performance of the faculty member during the periods covered in section 2 constitutes sufficient grounds for termination for cause, dismissal for cause may be initiated and if initiated will proceed in accordance with the procedures for dismissal for cause described in section 310.060.
      2. This procedure for review and development of faculty performance does not substitute for the dismissal for cause procedures stated in section 310.060.
      3. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 310.015 B.2.f above, this procedure does not impose additional requirements upon the University prior to initiating dismissal for cause procedures as stated in section 310.060.
  3. Full-Time Tenured Administrators -- In the event that a full-time administrator leaves her/his administrative position to become a full-time active tenured faculty member of a department, the normal annual departmental review process would be used to establish any discrepancy between the current abilities of the administrator and expectations concerning performance based on minimum departmental standards. If there is a discrepancy between current ability and departmental standards, a development plan funded by the administration should be considered for the administrator prior to her/his returning to the department.

Search Collected Rules: