Appendix B:

Post-tenure review Process

• Ideally, all materials are uploaded and submitted via your own Google Site. There are often some concerns about the Google Sites format. Take a moment to look over directions on the Home Page  for directions on what to do first, and a link to a quick tutorial on Google Sites that will make you feel more comfortable about the simple point-and-click steps to building your file. 

• Edit as of AY23: Faculty submitting a post-tenure review have the option of submitting their materials via a Google Folder, with separate subfolders to organize each of the required elements of the review (e.g., for teaching faculty, subfolders for CV, Self Report, student evals, course material, scholarship, and service).  Please follow the instructions under the tab, "Almost Done? Fix Permissions!" to be sure all materials within the folders are accessible before submitting. 

The post-tenure review and the resulting merit evaluation are a holistic assessment of the file; no other “common knowledge” about the candidate’s work or recent achievements subsequent to the file’s submission may be taken into consideration. As with all other stages of evaluation, only the file is being assessed.  

Per section V.H.4 of the Bylaws, regarding the post-tenure review process: 

"The Dean of Faculty will review the file and meet with the faculty member. The Dean of Faculty will communicate in writing the decision regarding the merit evaluation award to the faculty member under consideration. The letter will become part of the evaluation file."

When applying the guidance of the bylaws to the post-tenure merit review process, the bylaws are not understood to be prescribing actions in a particular sequence, but rather, the bylaws are identifying the components of the post-tenure review process. Because the written portfolio is the only evidence for the actual review, the evaluation of the file is only delivered in writing and cannot be influenced by the conversation between the Dean of Faculty and the faculty member.  

Thus, upon reviewing the faculty member's file and determining a merit evaluation award, the Dean of Faculty reports on those findings in a formal letter.  Once that letter is finalized and shared with the faculty member, a follow-up meeting is scheduled.  That meeting may serve a number of purposes: for the candidate to ask questions regarding the evaluation letter, for the dean to address any concerns regarding the faculty member's file, for the candidate and dean to discuss a suitable timeline for promotion to full professor, or for a conversation about accomplishments and long-term goals. 

Components of the Post-Tenure File

REQUIRED FOR TEACHING FACULTY

Materials for the evaluation file, assembled in this order:

• a current CV  

• comprehensive self- report 

• College‘s approved student evaluations 

• course material 

• materials documenting scholarly, professional and/or creative activities 

• materials documenting service to the College 

REQUIRED FOR LIBRARY FACULTY

From the by-laws:  

"The first five-year review will take place in the 11th semester after receipt of tenure and every five years thereafter until a librarian is promoted to Librarian. The librarian will then be reviewed every five years following promotion to Librarian. The librarian under review will compile an evaluation file documenting accomplishments in the areas of librarianship, service, and scholarly, professional and/or creative activities."

Materials for the evaluation file, assembled in this order:

• current CV

• comprehensive self report

• materials documenting librarianship

• materials documenting service to the College and wider community

• materials documenting scholarly, professional and/or creative activities

Merit reviews and Salary adjustments: 

At every evaluation benchmark (pre-tenure review, tenure review, 3yr post-tenure, full professor review, and 5yr post tenure review), the three components of all files (teaching, research/creative work, service) are evaluated as either excellent, strong, adequate, or inadequate. 

• For the shorter, three-year evaluation cycles (pre-tenure review and at the first and second 3yr post-tenure review), overall performance of  "adequate" or better results in a flat salary increases of $1500.  Note that the candidate may continue on the 3yr review cycle without standing for full professor, but may only earn salary increases twice.

• At the tenure review, full professor review, and 5yr post-tenure review, the three components are considered holistically to determine a merit award. Adequate performance or better may result in one of three ratings: SOLID, MERIT, or EXTRA MERIT. Each of these ratings results in base salary adjustments as follows: 

TENURE:  $4000 - $5500

• SOLID:  $4000

• MERIT:  $4750

• EXTRA MERIT:  $5500

Promotion to FULL: $4500 - $6000  [eligible for additional $1500 if candidate skipped 2nd 3yr review]

• SOLID: $4500

• MERIT: $5250

• EXTRA MERIT: $6000

5yr POST TENURE: $3500 - $5000

• SOLID: $3500

• MERIT: $4250

• EXTRA MERIT: $5000

NB: Per the Faculty Bylaws Sections V.H.5 and 6, faculty who have undergone post-tenure evaluation have the right to appeal their merit decision to the President. 

Evaluation timeline for tenure-track and tenured faculty

The PDF below outlines the standard evaluation review cycle for tenure-track and tenured faculty, from hire through post-tenure reviews at all ranks.  Note that while performance is reviewed at each stage, a variable merit award is only assessed at the time of tenure, promotion to full professor, and at all five-year post-tenure reviews. 

Note that some faculty may have variations in this timeline (such as negotiated time toward tenure, or an approved pause in the tenure clock).  In those circumstances, please consult with Academic Affairs to confirm a modified review timeline.