Bd. Min. 1-19-01; Amended 11-29-07; Amended 4-12-13; Amended 4-27-17; Amended 2-6-20.
- Non-Tenure Track and Untenured, Tenure Track Faculty. The performance of all non-tenure track and untenured tenure track faculty is to be reviewed annually by the appropriate unit supervisor (e.g., department chair, dean, director, etc.). The performance review should also include the workload distribution for the coming year or multiple years.
- Written evaluations are expected and must be provided to non-tenure track faculty members. The workload standard for non-tenure track faculty members should be spelled out in detail based on the specific job responsibilities and expectations in the job description (see CRR 310.035).
- Plans for untenured faculty may include multiple years up to the tenure review (see CRR 310.080.C). A multi-year plan will not be considered as assurance that an appointment will be renewed during the period covered by the plan. Annual evaluations of untenured faculty members during the probationary period must follow the faculty bylaws governing tenure for each campus (CRR 300.010 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Columbia; CRR 300.020 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Kansas City; CRR 300.030 Faculty Bylaws of Missouri University of Science and Technology; and CRR 300.040 Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-St. Louis).
- 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.
- Performance Review of Tenured Faculty Not Holding Full-Time Administrative Positions
- The tenured faculty of each department or unit will develop and publish standards for satisfactory performance which include minimum standards for teaching, research, and service as well as general principles for determining an overall satisfactory performance. They will be reviewed as part of the five-year program review. These standards are intended for use over the five-year time period covered by the post-tenure review (see B.1.c. below).
- 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 performance review will cover the performance for the past year. In addition, the chair and faculty member will discuss plans for the coming year in order to establish the workload distribution for the coming year or for multiple years up to the five-year post-tenure review (see CRR 310.080.C). The annual report will be reviewed by the chair or evaluation committee of the unit following normal unit practices. In this document the term chair will be used to mean the appropriate unit director (e.g., chair, unit administrator, area coordinator, etc.). Chairs will be reviewed annually by the dean according to the standards described in B.1.a. Using the unit standards for the annual performance review (described in B.1.a), and taking into consideration the faculty member's workload distribution (described in CRR 310.080.C.), 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. 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.
- If a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory evaluation in any category, there must be a face-to-face discussion of the evaluation between the faculty member and the chair to create a plan for achieving satisfactory evaluations. This may involve changing the faculty member's workload distribution (see CRR 310.080.C). One unsatisfactory evaluation in either teaching or research (or any major area of assignment) will result in an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. If the chair or evaluation committee has significant concerns about only one category, but determines that overall the faculty member has met the department standards, then the chair or committee may assign an overall satisfactory with warning and create an improvement plan to address the concern. The improvement plan will specify both the standards that the faculty member will achieve and the support that the department and/or other units will provide to the faculty member. If the unsatisfactory evaluation is in the teaching category, the chair will refer the faculty member to the campus unit responsible for fostering teaching excellence, and the faculty member must work with that unit to improve pedagogical methods. The improvement plan will be attached to the signed annual performance evaluation. If the faculty member disputes an overall unsatisfactory evaluation, the dean will review the evaluation and decide whether to affirm the evaluation or return it to the department chair for revision. In the succeeding annual performance review, failure to meet the standards set out in the plan will result in an overall unsatisfactory evaluation.
- 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 vitae. The review may be conducted either by the unit chair or by an evaluation committee of the unit, as decided by a vote of the tenured faculty (committee membership is described below in h.1.a.). The first five-year post-tenure review will be conducted five years after the tenure decision or the last formal review of the faculty member for promotion to associate professor or professor. Faculty hired with tenure will be reviewed five years after they are hired.
- Based on the five-year report, the chair or evaluation committee will evaluate the faculty member's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Satisfactory overall performance evaluations for each year will automatically be deemed sufficient for a satisfactory post-tenure review. The five-year evaluation process will be complete with a satisfactory evaluation. The purpose of the five-year post-tenure review is not merely to identify and remedy unsatisfactory performance, but also to identify and reward excellence in teaching, research, and service in accordance with the assigned workload distribution. In consultation with the chair, the Provost and the Dean will provide incentives to faculty who have exhibited such excellence.
- If an unsatisfactory overall performance review occurs in one or more years over the five year period, trends in the faculty member's performance will be considered in the final determination of the five-year post-tenure review. If the post-tenure review is deemed unsatisfactory by the chair and the initial review was conducted by the chair, then the chair will send the five-year report to the evaluation committee of the unit. 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 report will be forwarded to the appropriate dean, indicating the decision of the chair and departmental committee. The dean 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 judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory. If a majority of the evaluation committee of the department/unit and the dean consider the performance of the faculty member to be unsatisfactory, a plan for professional development will be written (see B.2. below).
- 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.
(1) Committee Membership
(a) The evaluation committee is typically the one that reviews faculty for tenure and promotion (CRR 320.035.A.1.d.). Only those who are tenured faculty members in the department may participate in the evaluation, except in circumstances described 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 in the same way as for a departmental tenure and promotion committee (CRR 320.035.A.1.d.). The committee may include faculty member(s) emeriti from the primary department in accordance with established procedures. In addition, it may include 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.
- Formulation of Development Plan and Assessment of Progress
- The development plan will be developed by the faculty member, the department/unit committee, and the chair of the unit. This development plan will have clear and attainable objectives for the faculty member and may include a reallocation of the faculty member's workload distribution in accord with the department workload standards (see CRR 310.080.C.) and a commitment of institutional resources to the plan. This plan will be signed by the faculty member, the chair or unit administrator, and the dean. The development phase will begin when the necessary resources as described in the development plan are provided.
- A faculty member who has received an overall unsatisfactory five-year evaluation by the chair, the departmental committee, and the dean 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.
- 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.
- 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. If the unit committee 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.
- If both the chair and the unit evaluation committee 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. If the dean 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.
- If the chair, the department/unit committee and the dean 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 for cause proceedings (see section 3.)
- Any faculty member may request participation in a formal development plan (as described in 2.a.) 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.
- Dismissal for Cause
- If it is deemed by the Chancellor that the performance of the faculty member during the periods covered in section 2 constitutes sufficient grounds, 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.
- This procedure for review and development of faculty performance does not substitute for the dismissal for cause procedures stated in section 310.060.
- 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.
- Performance Review of Tenured Faculty Not Holding Full-Time Administrative Positions
- 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 the faculty member's workload distribution and to address any discrepancy between the current abilities of the administrator and expectations concerning performance based on minimum departmental standards for the annual performance review. 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. Faculty who return to the full-time active faculty after completing service as full-time administrators will be reviewed five years after leaving their administrative posts.