Post Tenure Evaluation Policy

1.00 Purpose & Scope

The purpose of post-tenure evaluation is to acknowledge, encourage, and support the success and professional growth of tenured faculty, and to promote and maintain professional and institutional effectiveness. Just as California State University Monterey Bay's retention, tenure, and promotion policy encourages and rewards diversity and flexibility by recognizing various forms of scholarship, post-tenure evaluation recognizes and encourages the changing interests and contributions of faculty at different stages of their careers. Post-tenure evaluation also provides the university an opportunity to discover and address institutional obstacles to faculty effectiveness. This policy is intended to reflect the University's commitment to the principles goals and ideals described in the CSUMB Vision Statement and to its core values.

Post-tenure evaluation is a formative evaluation conducted in a positive atmosphere of constructive and beneficial communication among all involved, with a goal of ensuring that the talents and contributions of each faculty member are continuously developed, supported, and aligned with both professional goals and with department, college, and university priorities and the CSUMB Vision. The evaluation of tenured faculty shall respect the rights granted to faculty at tenure and shall be conducted in such a way as to protect the principle of academic freedom in conformity with American Association of University Professors' policies of academic freedom and due process.

For the purposes of this policy, the term "department" refers to department or appropriate unit, including school or division. The term "department chair" includes division chairs and school chairs. The term "college dean" refers to deans as well as to appropriate administrators for library and counseling faculty.

2.00 Definitions

College Dean: refers to deans as well as to appropriate administrators for the library and counseling faculty.

Department: refers to department or appropriate unit, including school or division.

Department Chair: includes division chairs and school chairs.

3.00 Frequency & Notification of Evaluation

Evaluation of tenured faculty members shall occur no less frequently than five years after their most recent post-tenure evaluation or promotion or tenure review, whichever is more recent, as required in Article 15 of the CFA-CSU Collective Bargaining Agreement.

  1. The Office of Academic Personnel shall publish post-tenure evaluation deadlines in the Academic Personnel calendar at the beginning of each academic year. The Office of Academic Personnel shall also provide deans, chairs, and affected faculty with a list of faculty subject to post-tenure evaluation.
  2. Department chairs shall provide tenured faculty with information, in writing, about any departmental post-tenure evaluation policies or guidelines no later than the date specified on the Academic Personnel calendar.
  3. A Promotion Review shall substitute for post-tenure evaluation for tenured faculty submitting a promotion portfolio. The academic year subsequent to the year in which the promotion review is completed is counted as year 1 towards the post-tenure evaluation cycle.
  4. Faculty members participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) are subject to post-tenure evaluation at least every fifth year. However, the timing of the evaluation shall be adjusted to coincide with the FERP faculty member's formal work assignments. In addition, post-tenure evaluation is waived for FERP faculty members who have given written notice of their intent to fully retire at the end of the academic year.
  5. Also subject to periodic evaluation are tenured faculty whose previous evaluations resulted in a decision to conduct an additional evaluation prior to the usual five-year period.
  6. Faculty who are scheduled for evaluation while on personal or professional leave shall be evaluated the year they return to campus.
  7. Any time period that a faculty member is on professional leave shall be counted as part of the five-year interval between evaluations.
  8. If more than 50% of the tenured faculty in a department are scheduled for post-tenure evaluation one year, the department chair may, in consultation with the dean or appropriate administrator and the director of Academic Personnel, adjust the evaluation schedule so that 50% or less of tenured faculty are scheduled for evaluation in a given year.

4.00 Evaluation Materials

The minimum set of evaluation materials to be submitted is listed below. In addition, departments may establish supplemental guidelines appropriate to the discipline.

The faculty member being evaluated shall submit all post-tenure evaluation materials to the department chair no later than the date specified on the Academic Personnel calendar. Electronic materials or course web sites should be submitted by email or on CD or DVD. In addition, copies of the curriculum vita and either CSUMB's post-tenure evaluation form or the reflective narrative shall be submitted to Academic Personnel no later than the date specified on the Academic Personnel calendar.

Materials Submitted for Evaluation:

  1. Copies of reports from most recent evaluation or review.
  2. A current curriculum vita that lists accomplishments and activities in each the four scholarship areas: Teaching and Learning; Discovery, Creation, and Integration; Professional Application; and University Service.
  3. Workload agreements for evaluation period, or if workload agreements are not available, a list or table of workload assignments for the evaluation period.
  4. CSUMB Post-Tenure Evaluation form OR a reflective narrative (three to five pages) that describes contributions in each scholarship area, their relationship to departmental goals and the CSUMB Vision, and establishes professional goals for the future. The reflective narrative should also describe any challenges that hindered successful completion of professional objectives.
  5. For those with instructional responsibilities, syllabi for up to three representative courses.
  6. Any additional materials specified by departmental policy or in previous evaluation reports.

The department or college shall provide post-tenure evaluation committees with access to copies of official student evaluations for evaluation period. When that is not possible, the Academic Personnel Office shall provide access to official student evaluations of teaching.

Additional materials submitted to the department chair or post-tenure evaluation committee that do not go to Academic Personnel shall be returned to the faculty member at the end of the evaluation process. The faculty member is responsible for making copies of evaluation materials for his/her own records.

5.00 Evaluation Process

Post-tenure evaluation involves evaluation by a peer committee and the dean or appropriate administrator. It is recommended that the faculty member being evaluated meet informally with the post-tenure evaluation committee at the start of the evaluation process to engage in a reflective dialogue.

Post-tenure evaluation reviewers may seek verification of any activities and contributions described on the post-tenure evaluation form or reflective narrative. Reviewers may ask the faculty member to provide supporting documentation within that verification process. Faculty undergoing post-tenure evaluation are attesting to the accuracy of the information provided by virtue of its submission in this process.

5.10 Peer Evaluation Committee Selection

Departments at CSUMB vary greatly in size and composition. The following university-wide policy is intended to allow departmental flexibility. Departments may establish additional guidelines for the selection of post-tenure peer evaluation committees through their internal governance processes.

5.1.1 Eligibility to Serve on Peer Evaluation Committee

  1. All tenured faculty in the department, including tenured department chairs, shall be eligible and obligated to serve on peer evaluation committees if selected, unless the faculty member is either on the University RTP committee or two or more department-level RTP committees. However, departments may develop additional guidelines specifying that only faculty of equal or higher rank, or only full professors, may serve on post-tenure evaluation committees.
  2. A faculty member undergoing post-tenure evaluation is ineligible to serve as a member of his/her own evaluation committee or on the post-tenure evaluation committees of other faculty, but may participate in RTP review committees, if otherwise eligible to do so.
  3. Tenured faculty from other departments with related subject matter may serve on a post-tenure evaluation committee.
  4. Faculty in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) may serve on post-tenure evaluation committees only if the evaluation can be completed within their FERP assignment and the committee membership is agreed upon as part of the FERP workload.

5.1.2 Selection of Peer Evaluation Committee

  1. Each post-tenure evaluation committee shall consist of two or more tenured faculty members.
  2. Departments may either form different post-tenure evaluation committees for each faculty member being evaluated, or may elect one post-tenure evaluation committee for the whole department. Regardless of which approach is used, each post-tenure evaluation committee must be approved by a vote of either the tenured faculty or the probationary and tenured faculty in the department, as specified by departmental governance.
  3. When a department chooses to have different post-tenure evaluation committees for each faculty member (to distribute the workload or to align peer evaluation with disciplinary expertise), the department chair, in consultation with the tenured faculty member who is to be evaluated, shall propose an appropriate post-tenure evaluation committee with two or more members. In the event of disagreement over the membership of the post-tenure evaluation committee, the individual being evaluated and the department chair shall each select one member of the committee, and the two faculty thus selected shall choose a third faculty member to complete the committee.
  4. Each peer evaluation committee shall elect its own committee chair.

5.20 Responsibilities of Evaluators

5.2.1 Responsibilities of Peer Evaluation Committee

  1. The post-tenure evaluation committee shall review all materials submitted by the faculty member, copies of official student evaluations, and solicit any necessary supporting documentation from the faculty member.
  2. Post-tenure evaluation committees shall ensure that the evaluation process involves dialogue with the faculty member and is constructive. Before the committee prepares its final written report and recommendations, the peer committee shall provide an opportunity for the faculty member to meet with the committee (or at a minimum with the committee chair) to discuss the faculty member's goals, plans, constraints, needs, and priorities.
  3. No later than the date specified in the Academic Personnel calendar, the post-tenure evaluation committee shall write a summary report of the faculty member's strengths and any areas that need improvement, with specific recommendations concerning support for the faculty member's professional growth and success.
  4. The committee report should be added to the materials submitted by the faculty member and forwarded to the dean, with copies to the faculty member, the department chair, and Academic Personnel.

5.2.2 Dean's Responsibilities

The dean shall review all evaluation materials and the report of the post-tenure evaluation committee.

  1. Either the faculty member or the dean may request a meeting to discuss the faculty member's strengths, goals, constraints, any areas needing development, institutional obstacles to success, and priorities. If a meeting is requested, the meeting shall include the dean, the faculty member, a representative of the peer evaluation committee, and the department chair (if the department chair is not on the post-tenure evaluation committee).
  2. No later than the date specified in the Academic Personnel calendar, the dean shall either concur (in writing) with the post-tenure evaluation committee's report or shall write a final summary report of the faculty member's strengths and any individual and/or institutional areas that need improvement, make specific recommendations concerning support for the faculty member's professional growth, and address any constraints or obstacles to success.
  3. The dean's report should be submitted to Academic Personnel, with copies to the faculty member, the departmental post-tenure evaluation committee, and the department chair.

5.30 Faculty Response to Written Evaluation Reports

A faculty member may submit a written response to an evaluation report from the post-tenure evaluation committee and the dean no later than ten days after receiving a copy of the written evaluation. The response must be submitted to Academic Personnel and the department chair, who will add the response to the evaluation file. Responses/rebuttals may not contain additional supporting evidence.

6.00 Outcomes

6.10 Personnel Action File

At the end of each evaluation cycle, Academic Personnel shall permanently place copies of the following materials from the evaluation file into the candidate's official Personnel Action File (PAF):

  1. Curriculum vita
  2. Post-tenure evaluation form or reflective narrative
  3. Written evaluation reports from the post-tenure evaluation committee and the dean
  4. Any responses by the faculty member.

6.20 Annual Faculty Workload Agreements

The recommendations of the post-tenure evaluation reports from the post-tenure evaluation committee and the dean shall be taken into consideration during the development of the faculty member's annual workload agreements.

6.30 Professional Growth

Recommendations for professional growth identified in the evaluation should be implemented, as feasible, at the departmental, college, or university level, as appropriate to the goals identified.

7.00 Continuous Renewal

This policy shall be reviewed five years from its effective date to determine its utility and effectiveness. The policy may be reviewed before that time if changes in the CSU Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement require such changes.

s/ Eduardo M. Ochoa, President

Effective Date: March 2, 2015

Certification of Process

Reviewed by: Policy Facilitation Team, Educational Planning and Policy Committee, Academic Senate Executive Committee, Academic Personnel, Deans and Provost.