Interim Review of Tenure-Track Faculty
WHEREAS the Faculty Handbook section on "Evaluation During Probationary Period" contains some ambiguities that could result in inconsistencies in the Interim Review process across the university, and
WHEREAS concerns relating to the adherence to time lines in the Interim Review process have been brought to the Faculty Senate's attention, and
WHEREAS adherence to standardized procedures and time lines by both faculty and administrators ensures due process;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate recommend that the Provost convene an ad hoc committee composed of chairs of departmental tenure/promotion peer committees, with the charge to propose revisions of the Faculty Handbook section regarding the Interim Review process.
Possible issues to be clarified can include:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate recommend that the Provost and deans work with the department heads to ensure that each department follows all the guidelines for the Interim Review in the Faculty Handbook; that each department has specific written procedures and evaluative criteria for the Interim Review and any other tenure-related reviews; that tenure-track faculty receive such documents upon beginning their probationary periods; and that tenured faculty have such documents when they conduct peer reviews of tenure-track faculty.
- the peer committee's purpose and role in the Interim Review e.g., whether or not it conducts any votes and can recommend termination, or just serves as an evaluative body)
- a mandatory meeting between the committee and the candidate
- the required contents in the candidate's Interim Review file
- a candidate's right to complete the review process, including the peer evaluation, unless he/she has received a termination letter from the department head at least one month before the due date for the review file;