Academic Affairs Manual (ACD)

[horizontal rule]

Effective: 4/14/1997

Revised: 7/1/2011

[horizontal rule]
[ASU logo]

ACD 506–11: Post-Tenure Review

[horizontal rule]

Purpose

[horizontal rule]

To describe post-tenure review

[horizontal rule]

Sources

[horizontal rule]

Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–201
University Senate

[horizontal rule]

Applicability

[horizontal rule]

Tenured faculty

[horizontal rule]

Policy

[horizontal rule]

Arizona State University awards tenure after rigorous annual performance evaluations, a probationary review, and a tenure review. Once tenure is awarded, the faculty member has a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment unless he/she resigns, retires, or is dismissed or released in accord with ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service.” Since tenure is awarded based on a demonstration of excellence and the continued promise of excellence, it is in the best interests of ASU to support faculty and evaluate performance after tenure.

The post-tenure review assures accountability for sustained, high quality performance as well as promotes continued professional development. The post-tenure review is guided by the Principles for Post-Tenure Review at ASU approved by the University Senate in 1996.

When a faculty member receives an overall unsatisfactory performance rating, a college level Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is required. An overall unsatisfactory rating may result from two or more areas with unsatisfactory ratings in consecutive years or may result from one area with an unsatisfactory rating (for example, teaching) depending on the emphasis assigned to that area in the faculty member’s goal-based work load agreement and the extent of the deficiency.

If an individual’s performance becomes unsatisfactory, the faculty member has a responsibility, shared with the university, to improve performance. Every attempt should be made to support the faculty member through a college level PIP that provides specific and unambiguous goals, timelines and milestones for achieving the goals. Only after the faculty member has clearly not achieved these goals or when a faculty member chooses not to enter into a PIP should dismissal for cause be considered.

For complete information about the post-tenure review process, see P7, “Post-Tenure Review Process.” Individuals who disagree with the substance of the evaluation on the faculty member’s performance under the Performance Improvement Plan may file an appeal in accord with ACD 506–10, “Annual Evaluations of Faculty.” A faculty member who believes that the post-tenure review process involved a material procedural violation may file a grievance in accord with ACD 509–02, “Grievance Policy for Faculty.” If a dismissal for cause is recommended, faculty may contest that recommendation through the administrative hearing process specified in ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service.”


Documenting the Impact of Post-Tenure Review

The following information documents the implementation of the policy:

  1. Tenure Audit: The annual tenure audit will include information on the outcomes of post-tenure reviews

    and

  2. Dean’s Level Audit Report: On an annual basis, the university will provide information on the outcomes of the Dean’s Level Audit procedure.

[horizontal rule]

Cross-References

[horizontal rule]

  1. ACD 501, “Conditions of Faculty Service”
  2. ACD 506–03, “Faculty Probationary Appointments”
  3. ACD 506–04, “Tenure”
  4. ACD 506–10, “Annual Evaluations of Faculty”
  5. ACD 509–02, “Grievance Policy for Faculty.”

 


skip navigation bar

ACD manual | ASU policies and procedures manuals | Index of Policies by Title | ACD manual contact | Provost’s Office Web site

Back to Top

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional