Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts 1.3.3.
Approved by the Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts Faculty Senate, October 17, 1997.
The Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland (USM) established the principle of faculty evaluation in its policy on Evaluation of Performance of Faculty (II - 1.20) and the principle of accountability for faculty workload and performance in its Policy on Faculty Workload and Responsibilities (II - 1.25). To coordinate and implement these principles, as they apply to tenured faculty, the Board of Regents has required that each member institution establish a policy on the comprehensive review of tenured faculty, as well as procedures to implement such a policy. Pursuant to this mandate, the University of Baltimore has established such a policy, which requires that the Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts develop procedures to carry out this system of review, and criteria for the assessment of faculty performance.
This Policy Statement constitutes such procedures and criteria for the Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts.
To facilitate continued professional development of the faculty, tenured faculty members shall undergo formal, periodic peer review of their professional activities.
The review process described below shall be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the preservation of academic freedom. This review process is separate from and may not be substituted, directly or indirectly, for the USM and institutional policies and procedures relating to the termination of tenured appointments, which are in no way amended by this policy.
Back to top
II. Membership of Review Committees
- Each Division shall establish a Post-tenure Review Committee composed of at least three and not more than five tenured faculty from the Division. A new Review Committee shall be established for each academic year. Members of the previous committee are eligible for re-appointment.
- The Divisional Chair shall establish the Review Committee in consultation with the Division’s tenured faculty. If the Divisional Chair is to be reviewed, the other tenured faculty shall organize the Review Committee.
- The Chair of the Post-tenure Review Committee shall be elected by the members.
- No person shall serve as a member of a Post-tenure Review Committee in a year in which he or she is to be reviewed under this policy.
- In the event that in any given year a Division cannot constitute a Review Committee in accordance with II (A), the most senior tenured faculty member in the Division, in consultation with the Dean, shall establish the Committee.
Back to top
III. Scope of Review
- The scope of the review shall be teaching, scholarship, and service.
- Faculty expectations shall be based on the standard that applies to promotion to the position held by the faculty member.
- Faculty productivity shall be evaluated in accordance with the College’s faculty workload policy, with due regard to the allocations contained in the individual’s workload allocation and the faculty member’s role in the College and University
Back to top
IV. Process of Review
- For AY 1999 and thereafter, each faculty member to be reviewed shall be notified in writing by May 1 of the previous academic year by the Dean or Dean’s designate, upon recommendation by the divisional chair.
The order of the review shall be determined by the date of the faculty member’s award of tenure; those who have been tenured for the longest time shall comprise the initial group, and subsequently in descending order of tenure decision.
- Subject to IV(A) above, tenured members of the faculty shall be reviewed every five years, with the following exceptions:
- Separate reviews conducted for promotion shall substitute for faculty review under this policy;
- Two consecutive annual salary/workload reviews by the Dean that indicate that a faculty member is not meeting expectations shall occasion an immediate comprehensive review, which shall be in addition to those otherwise required by this policy.
- A faculty member may apply to the Divisional Chair for a one-year postponement or advancement of post-tenure review if he or she is scheduled for leave for a semester or more.
- Each faculty member under review shall supply to the Review Committee, by October 1, a written report detailing his or her teaching, scholarship, and service for the previous five years.
- In addition to the faculty member’s report, the Review Committee may consider other reliable sources of information normally considered in cases of promotion and tenure in the College of Liberal Arts, including, but not limited to: classroom visitation, any written materials associated with the faculty member’s annual reviews, his or her annual workload allocation, scholarly publications, and student course evaluations.
- A report approved by a majority of the Review Committee shall become the Committee’s preliminary report. If approval of the report is not unanimous, dissenting members may submit a minority report. The members of the Committee shall sign the version of the report to which they subscribe.
- For each area under review (teaching, scholarship, and service) the report shall indicate whether the faculty meets expectations or does not meet expectations.
- The Review Committee shall give a copy of its preliminary report to the faculty member under review by March 1.
The faculty member shall have fourteen days to give a written response to the Committee, if he or she so wishes.
After giving consideration to the faculty member’s response, the Committee shall issue its final report by April 15, supplying a copy of the report to the faculty member and to the Dean.
The faculty member shall have fourteen days to give a formal written response to the Committee’s final report, if he or she so wishes. Such response shall be provided to the Committee and to the Dean and shall be appended to the Committee’s final report.
- The Review Committee shall keep its deliberations and reports confidential. A copy of the final report shall be sent to the faculty member under review, the Divisional Chair, and the Dean. The faculty member under review may waive the confidentiality of the report.
Back to top
V. Initial Review Process and Timetable
Back to top