Part IX, Section II: Performance Review of Tenured Faculty of East Carolina University

Updated: February 26, 2025
  • I. Preamble
  • II. Description of Policy
    1. Timing
    2. Performance Standards for the Review
    3. Peer Review Committee (PRC)
    4. Review Process
    5. Rewards
    6. Faculty Success Plan
    7. Subsequent Evaluation
    8. Training
  • III. Forms
    Guidelines for Faculty 5-Year Plan (link provides all forms, or they can be accessed below)
    1. Faculty 5-Year Comprehensive Work Plan
    2. Faculty Self-Assessment
    3. Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty

I. Preamble

On May 16, 1997, the Board of Governors mandated the review of performance of tenured faculty in the University of North Carolina system. The June 24, 1997, Administrative Memorandum #371 from the General Administration of the UNC System required each constituent institution to create a policy that examines individual faculty contributions to departmental, school/college, and university goals as well as to the academic programs in which faculty teach. On January 25, 2024, the UNC Board of Governors adopted the policy “Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (Post-Tenure Review)” (The UNC Policy Manual 400.3.3). On March 3, 2024 the UNC Board of Governors adopted its Regulation on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (Post-Tenure Review).

The performance review of tenured faculty is a cumulative, comprehensive periodic evaluation of tenured faculty, and has the purpose of supporting and encouraging excellence among tenured faculty.

UNC Policy 400.3.3 is designed to assist faculty members in meeting university performance expectations; recognize and reward exemplary faculty performance when faculty members exceed expectations; provide a clear plan and timetable for improvement of performance when faculty do not meet expectations; and provide for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, consistent with Chapter VI of The Code of the University, when faculty members do not meet the goals established in a faculty success plan. The policy directs individual institutions to adopt and maintain policies consistent with the mission of the institution, college, and department/program. These policies shall be reviewed and as needed, updated at least every three years.

The post-tenure review of each tenured faculty member shall take place at least every five years. All participants in the post-tenure review shall consider the faculty member’s annual evaluations and any faculty success plans that were required in the time period under review. The review shall include faculty self-evaluation, involve peers in the review process, assure written feedback as well as a mechanism for faculty response to the evaluation, and require a faculty success plan for any faculty member whose performance review results in “does not meet expectations” in any area.

East Carolina University’s Policy for the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty is consistent with University of North Carolina Policy 400.3.3 and is consistent with the East Carolina University Faculty Manual and “The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina” (hereafter The Code). This policy does not create a process for the reevaluation or revalidation of tenured status. The standard for the performance review of tenured faculty member performance is whether they discharge conscientiously and with professional competence the duties associated with their position. Furthermore, the policy is created with the presumption of competence on the part of each tenured faculty member. The performance review for a faculty member must reflect the nature of the individual’s field or work and must conform to fair and reasonable expectations as recognized by faculty peers in the individual’s academic unit. The performance review must be conducted in a manner free of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory elements and must follow the procedures delineated in the subsections below.

II. Description of Policy

  1. Timing
    For each tenured faculty member, a post-tenure review shall take place at least every five years. A review undertaken as part of the process for conferring tenure or recommending a faculty member for promotion qualifies as a cumulative performance review; the next post-tenure review shall occur five years after the date of the conferral of tenure or promotion regardless of the date of any preceding review. For permanently tenured full-time faculty members who have received University approved leaves of absence, the expectations for the review period will be adjusted accordingly and reflected in the individual’s five-year work plan. If a tenured faculty member is reassigned to administrative duties (e.g., department chair) for .50 FTE or more, or is occupying a leave-earning position (e.g., SAAO), that faculty member shall not be required to undergo post-tenure review until having completed a five-year cycle following the reassignment.
  2. Performance Standards for the Review
    Units shall establish in their unit codes post-tenure review standards of “exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations“ or “does not meet expectations”. The following terms shall be utilized when establishing the unit standards:
    1. Exceeds expectations: The faculty member consistently exceeds established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.
    2. Meets expectations: The faculty member consistently achieves and may occasionally exceed established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.
    3. Does not meet expectations: The faculty member does not consistently meet established goals in the faculty member’s annual and long-term work plans.

      The unit standards will comply with the provisions of Part VIII, Section I.I (subsections C and D) of the East Carolina University Faculty Manual, the unit code provisions, and the primacy of instruction within the UNC system institutions. The unit standards should be consistent with the mission and applicable strategic goals of the institution, college, school, department/program. Expectations at the time of the conferral of permanent tenure for individual faculty members should be considered when reviewing the faculty member’s performance in teaching, research/creative activity, patient care and related clinical responsibilities, and other duties, including contributions to the departmental, college/school, and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in which the faculty member teaches, and any other professional activities bearing on the faculty member’s performance of their duties during the period under review.
  3. Peer Review Committee (PRC)
    The unit administrator will notify the chair of the Personnel Committee that post-tenure review is needed. The chair of the Personnel Committee will convene a meeting of the Tenure Committee to elect the Peer Review Committee members.

    The Tenure Committee will elect a minimum of three faculty members and one alternate from the permanently tenured voting faculty (East Carolina University Faculty Manual, Part IX.I, subsection IV.B. Description of Unit Voting Faculty Members) not holding administrative status to serve on the Peer Review Committee. The alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. The faculty member being reviewed shall not have the option of selecting members of the Peer Review Committee. Members on the Performance Review Committee shall serve for one academic year.

    After the election, the chair of the Personnel Committee will call a meeting of the Peer Review Committee. If the chair of the Personnel Committee is not a member of the Peer Review Committee, the chair shall not be able to participate and shall only be responsible for calling the meeting of the Peer Review Committee and ensuring the election of a chair from among its membership. In such cases where the Chair of the unit Personnel Committee is ineligible to participate, they shall not attend any meetings of the committee except to facilitate the election of the chair as noted above.

    If the unit’s tenured faculty includes no other expert in the specific field of research/creative activity of the faculty member under review, at the candidate’s request, the tenured faculty may establish a process for selecting external faculty experts to provide a review of the candidate’s research/creative activity work. The external expert shall be a tenured faculty member and, if available, from a UNC constituent institution.

    When a unit is unable to elect three permanently tenured voting faculty members not holding administrative status, the next higher administrator above the unit level shall appoint permanently tenured voting faculty members not holding administrative status from other units to increase the committee’s membership to three members and one alternate. These appointments to the committee must be from one list of candidates selected by a vote of the permanently tenured and probationary-term voting faculty of the unit. The list forwarded to the next higher administrator by the appropriate faculty will contain at least twice the number of faculty members required to complete the membership of the committee. Before voting on the list to be forwarded to the next higher administrator, the voting faculty will ascertain that faculty members nominated to have their names placed on the list are willing and able to serve in this capacity. The list of faculty names recommended to the next higher administrator may not be returned for revision.
  4. Review Process
    Performance Review of Tenured Faculty shall cover all aspects of the faculty member’s professional performance. The review will consider the faculty member’s annual reports and annual evaluations (East Carolina University Faculty Manual, Part VIII.I.III. Evaluations), annual and long-term work plans, and any faculty success plans that were required in the time period under review. Annual evaluations are not determinative of the post-tenure review outcome, but faculty members should not receive a “does not meet expectations” post-tenure review evaluation unless they have sub-par annual evaluations. Should a subsequent academic unit administrator disagree with the annual reviews and annual reports of an individual faculty member composed before the term of office of the incumbent administrator, the administrator shall not dismiss, alter, or argue against the body and conclusions of the earlier annual reviews and reports.

    The review shall be based on a comprehensive assessment of the faculty member’s teaching, research, service, and other duties, including contributions to the departmental, college/school and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in which the faculty member teaches, and any other professional activities bearing on the faculty member’s performance of their duties during the period under review.

    At the beginning of the post-tenure review cycle, using Form A below, the faculty member in collaboration with the unit administrator shall develop a five-year comprehensive work-plan. A faculty member, in consultation with their unit administrator, is allowed to modify the five-year-plan annually, as deemed appropriate by changes in institutional, departmental, or person circumstances.

    Once the five-year comprehensive work plan is created and using Form B below, the faculty shall write a self-assessment.

    The faculty member shall forward to the Peer Assessment Review Committee their self-assessment, annual reports, annual evaluations, peer assessment of teaching effectiveness (Faculty Senate Resolution #24-52, #24-83), the faculty member’s annual and 5-year comprehensive work plan (past and future), any faculty success plans that were required for the period under review, a copy of the faculty member’s current curriculum vitae, and any other material the faculty member wants to provide to the review committee in support of their professional performance over the review period.

    The Peer Review Committee, using the attached Form, shall prepare a brief, written rationale for assessment in each relevant category (teaching, research/creative activity, service, other as included in the unit code) and an overall assessment of performance of the faculty member under review. The review shall include ratings that summarize the faculty member’s performance in each category of responsibility as “exceeds expectations”, “meets expectations” or “does not meet expectations” and shall conclude with an overall ranking. Any performance review that indicates the faculty member does not meet expectations in any category shall include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they related to the faculty member’s assigned duties.

    The Peer Review Committee using Form C below shall provide a copy of their performance review to the faculty member. The faculty member may provide a written response within 14 calendar days of receiving the review.

    The performance review, the materials submitted by the faculty member, and any written response from the faculty member shall be forwarded to the unit administrator. The unit administrator shall consult with the Peer Review Committee before rendering their own evaluation. Potential disagreements between the committee and the unit administrator shall be addressed during this consultation.

    After the consultation and using the Form C below, the unit administrator shall provide a separate, written evaluation of the faculty member. That evaluation shall explicitly state points of concurrence or points of variation from the review committee. Any recommendation for a faculty success plan or for recognition of performance that exceeds expectations shall be accompanied by a specific rationale for that recommendation.

    The unit administrator shall provide a copy of their evaluation to the faculty member and the Peer Review Committee. The faculty member may provide a written response within 14 calendar days of receiving the reports. A copy of the faculty member’s response will be provided to the Peer Review Committee and unit administrator.

    The dean shall be provided the unit’s Performance Standards for Review, the materials submitted by the faculty member, the Peer Review Committee’s report, the unit administrator’s report and any written response from the faculty member. The dean shall discuss any potential non-concurrence with the committee before preparing their own performance review report.

    The dean shall prepare their own performance review report which shall consist of a narrative evaluation of the overall performance of the candidate that takes into consideration the faculty member’s annual workplans during each of the years being reviewed. The evaluation shall conclude with an overall ranking that categorizes each faculty member’s performance as “meets,” “exceeds,” or “does not meet” expectations. A negative review must include a statement of the faculty member’s primary responsibilities and specific descriptions of shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s assigned duties.

    The dean shall forward their report to the faculty member, the unit administrator and the Peer Review Committee. A faculty member may provide the dean with a written response within 14 calendar days of receiving their college performance review. A copy of the faculty member’s response will be provided to the unit administrator and the Peer Review Committee. A faculty member’s response will be forwarded to the Provost, along with the complete performance review materials to be included in the personnel file.

    A faculty member whose review results in an overall rating of “exceeds expectations” or “meets expectations” shall be considered to have completed the post-tenure review process. A faculty member whose review results in “does not meet expectations” shall be subject to a faculty success plan. At the discretion of the faculty member, the final review may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of the grievance procedure of Part XII.I as appropriate.

    After the review is complete, the dean shall forward their report and any faculty member’s response to the Provost, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the review process. The Provost will annually certify to the UNC President or their designee that all aspects of the review process are in compliance with UNC Policy 400.3.3.
  5. Rewards
    UNC Policy 400.3.3. entitled “Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (Post-Tenure Review)” requires that faculty whose post-tenure performance exceeds expectations shall be recognized and rewarded. A faculty member whose performance is deemed to have exceeded expectation may be recognized in ways including, but not limited to, nomination for awards, merit salary increases, research leaves, and/or revisions of work load.
  6. Faculty Success Plan
    A faculty member whose performance does not meet expectations shall negotiate a formal success plan with the Peer Review Committee, the unit administrator, and in consultation with the dean. The success plan must: (a) identify specific shortcomings as they relate to the faculty member’s performance of their assigned duties; (b) state any modification of duties due to a less than satisfactory rating and take into account the new allocation of responsibilities; (c) ensure that changes to duties are not punitive, but instead address ways to support the institution to better leverage the faculty member’s expertise and abilities and improve their performance in any areas deemed deficient; (d) include specific steps designed to lead to a faculty member’s improved performance; (e) specify resources necessary to support the success plan, (f) specify a timeline of at least two academic years in which improvement is expected to occur; (g) schedule and require written records of progress meetings between the faculty member, the unit administrator and the chair of the Peer Review Committee at regular intervals no less frequently than twice each academic year; (h) state the consequences for the faculty member should improvement not occur within the designated timeline. The use of mentoring peers is encouraged.

    The description of specific steps designed to lead to improvement shall state guidelines, present criteria by which the faculty member could monitor their progress, and identify the source of any institutional commitments, if required. The plan is a commitment by the faculty member, with support provided by the Peer Review Committee, and the unit administrator to improve the faculty member’s performance. Adequate resources shall be provided to support the plan. The plan shall be consistent with the faculty member’s academic freedom (as defined by the East Carolina University Faculty Manual, Part V), shall be self-directed by the faculty member, and shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for subsequent amendment, if necessary. Such amendment will follow the same process as the development of the original plan. If the unit administrator, Peer Review Committee, and faculty member cannot agree on a formal success plan, each party’s draft of a plan will be forwarded to the next higher administrator, who will make the final decision.

    The faculty member’s success progress shall be reviewed in a meeting that occurs at least twice each academic year with the Peer Review Committee and the unit administrator. The unit administrator shall provide a written evaluation of progress to the faculty member. If the unit administrator, the Peer Review Committee, and the faculty member cannot agree on the faculty member’s progress, the next higher administrator will meet with the relevant parties and make a final determination. A copy of this evaluation will be provided to the faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
  7. Subsequent Evaluation
    If the unit administrator and the Peer Review Committee determine that the faculty member’s cumulative performance exceeds or meets expectations within the specified timeline, the unit administrator shall report the results of the performance review in writing to the faculty member and place a copy of the written evaluation in the faculty member’s personnel file. In this case, the faculty member will return to the regular schedule of post-tenure review.

    If the faculty member’s cumulative performance level remains below expectations after the specified timelines, the unit administrator may recommend that serious sanctions be imposed as governed by Part XII, Section I (VI), “Due Process Before Discharge or Imposition of Serious Sanction,” of the East Carolina University Faculty Manual and Chapter VI of The Code of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina.

    *With respect to personnel matters relating to Performance Review, academic units are defined as departments described in the codes of operation of professional schools, the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, professional schools without departments, Academic Library Services, Health Sciences Library, and any other units in which faculty appointments are made. In the College of Arts and Sciences and in professional schools whose unit codes describe departmental structures, departmental chairs are the unit administrators. In schools that do not have departments described in their unit codes, the dean of the school is the unit administrator.
  8. Training
    All parties involved in the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty evaluations, including Peer Review Committee members, department chairs, unit administrators, and deans, shall complete performance review training provided by the UNC System.

III. Forms

Guidelines for Faculty 5-Year Plan (link provides all forms, or the forms are also available below)

  1. Faculty 5-Year Comprehensive Work Plan (docx)
  2. Faculty Self-Assessment (docx)
  3. Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (docx)

Faculty Senate Resolution #98-13, April 1998
Faculty Senate Resolution #98-29, November 1998
Interpretation I98-10 made to Section II., October 1998 Faculty Senate Resolution #08-42, August 2010 (UNC General Administration)
Faculty Senate Resolution #09-33, August 2010 (UNC General Administration)
Faculty Senate Resolution #15-28, October 2015 (UNC General Administration)

Faculty Senate Resolution #24-37, September 2024

Faculty Senate Resolution #24-54, June 2024

Faculty Senate Resolution #25-06, February 2025