Academic Affairs Manual (ACD)

[horizontal rule]

Effective: 1/9/2006

Revised: 7/1/2011

[horizontal rule]
[ASU logo]

ACD 507–09: Post-Continuing Appointment Review

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

To provide a formal system to help improve performance in cases in which performance has become unsatisfactory

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–301, 302
Office of the Provost of the University

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

Academic professionals on continuing appointment

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

Continuing appointment for academic professionals is achieved through the process outlined in ACD 507–06, “Continuing Appointment for Academic Professionals.”

This policy establishes procedures to help improve the performance of an academic professional with continuing appointment whose performance has been evaluated as unsatisfactory. The purpose of post-continuing appointment review is to help the academic professional improve performance.

Unit Level Development Plan

If the annual performance evaluation (see ACD 507–08, “Annual Performance Evaluation”) results in an unsatisfactory rating in one of the three performance areas (where the overall performance rating is satisfactory), the unit head will formulate a development plan, in consultation with the academic professional. The development plan will have specific goals for the academic professional to achieve within one year, with appropriate monitoring and feedback.

Refusal to enter into a development plan may result in initiation of dismissal.

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) will be formulated if:

  1. the annual performance evaluation results in an overall unsatisfactory rating


  2. the goals of the unit level development plan are not met.

The PIP is formulated by the unit head, in consultation with the academic professional and the dean. Should the unit head and the academic professional fail to agree on a PIP, the dean/university librarian will formulate the plan. The PIP must identify, as a minimum, the following points:

  1. the specific deficiencies in performance
  2. specific reasonable goals/outcomes to remedy the deficiencies
  3. an outline of activities to be undertaken to achieve the goals/outcomes
  4. milestones with specific performance criteria so that progress toward goals/outcomes can be measured periodically
  5. the duration of the plan, normally one year
    Note: In those rare circumstances when the nature of the deficiency cannot be remedied in one year, the duration of the plan may go beyond one year. Any plan that exceeds one year must be approved by the provost of the university.


  1. reasonable resources that will be made available to assist the academic professional in the achievement of goals. Such resources include, but are not limited to employee development, employee assistance, opportunities for funding, and others.

The PIP, once formulated, will be implemented and the academic professional's performance will be evaluated against the PIP rather than through the normal annual evaluation process.

If the academic professional chooses not to enter into a PIP, the dean will begin the process for dismissal for just cause. The process that will be followed is outlined in ACD 503, “Conditions of Professional Service.”

Monitoring and Follow-Up

Once the performance improvement plan has been established, the academic professional and unit head will make progress reports to the dean. At the conclusion of the time allocated for the PIP, the unit head will forward recommendations to the dean and the academic professional. The academic professional may submit separate comments to the dean.

Completion of the Performance Improvement Plan/Return to Normal Annual Review Process

The PIP is completed when the academic professional has achieved the aforementioned goals/outcomes, or when the time allotted to the plan has expired, whichever first occurs. If the PIP is completed successfully, that is, goals/outcomes are satisfied, the academic professional will return to the normal annual performance evaluation process.

If the dean determines that the goals/outcomes have not been achieved by the expiration of the PIP, the dean will initiate the dismissal for just cause process.

In either case, the dean will notify the academic professional and the unit head in writing of the outcome of the process.

Appeals or Grievances

During the post-continuing appointment review process, an academic professional has the right to appeal performance evaluations or the process by which the evaluation was formed (see ACD 507–08, “Annual Performance Evaluation”).

If the post continuing appointment review process results in dismissal, the academic professional has the right to grieve the dismissal decision as out lined in Arizona Board of Regent policy 6–301, “Conditions of Professional Service.”

Dismissals of continuing academic professionals proceed under Arizona Board of Regents policy, not ACD 509–03, “Grievance Policy for Academic Professionals.”

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

For information on the process for dismissal for just cause, see ACD 503, “Conditions of Professional Service.”

For information on continuing appointment, see ACD 507–06, “Continuing Appointment for Academic Professionals.”

For information on annual performance evaluation, see ACD 507–08, “Annual Performance Evaluation of Academic Professionals.”


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