Skip to main content

Post-Tenure Review

Guidelines for Implementation

March 1, 2018

In 1995, the University adopted Policy II-1.20(A) on the Periodic Evaluation of Faculty Performance, to facilitate the continued professional development of tenured faculty members. This policy was revised in 1998 in accordance with the requirements of the USM Policy on the Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty (19.0 II-1.19). The purpose of comprehensive review (Post-tenure) is to (II-1.20(A)):

  1. recognize long-term meritorious performance;
  2. improve quality of faculty efforts in teaching, scholarship, and service;
  3. increase opportunities for professional development; and
  4. uncover impediments to faculty productivity.

Post-tenure reviews supplement other periodic evaluative reviews, such as annual merit reviews. These guidelines update the original post-tenure review guidelines developed in 2013 by the Office of Faculty Affairs to facilitate compliance with and implementation of the USM/UMCP policies and the Provost’s memorandum dated March 1, 2018. Evaluative procedures for post- tenure review must be adopted by and incorporated into unit plans of organization (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)). Please submit copies of your most recent plans to the Dean’s office and the Office of Faculty Affairs by April 1, 2018.

Frequency of Evaluations

“Comprehensive post-tenure reviews” of each tenured faculty member must occur no less frequently than every 5 years (USM Policy 19.0 II-1.19.5). Units should develop a process, procedure, and schedule for post-tenure reviews of each tenured faculty member that ensures that this timeline is met.

Periodic reviews may consist of standard merit reviews (normally spanning 3 years of data) or any other relevant evaluative review leading to contract renewal. Units may determine the frequency of such periodic reviews, to conduct them either annually or bi-annually.

In addition to the requirement of conducting post-tenure reviews every 5 years, “two consecutive [periodic] reviews that indicate that a faculty member is materially deficient in meeting expectations shall occasion an immediate comprehensive review” (USM Policy 19.0 II-1.19.5).

Required Elements of Post-Tenure Comprehensive Review Procedures

Description of Timeline for Evaluations

  • No less frequently than every 5 years, or if two consecutive periodic reviews indicate that the faculty member does not meet expectations. If a faculty member is found not to meet expectations in two consecutive periodic reviews, a post-tenure review for the faculty member must be scheduled for the next immediate post-tenure review cycle.
  • The procedures must also state how leaves (e.g., sabbatical, leave without pay, other), assignments (i.e., administrative), or other factors may impact the schedule.


  • Units are required to comply with the conduct of post-tenure reviews as per USM (19.0 II-1.19) and University (II-1.20(A)) policies.
  • Faculty are required to comply with the requirements of post-tenure reviews as per USM (19.0 II-1.19) and University (II-1.20(A)), and unit level policies and procedures, including the timely provision of required documents as per unit policies, guidelines, and expectations. Failure to comply with policies and procedures may result in the loss of sabbatical privileges, ineligibility for merit pay consideration, and other actions as per USM, University, and unit policies.

Who Conducts the Review

  • The review should be conducted “consistent with the general principles of peer review” (USM Policy 19.0 II-1.19.3).
  • The composition of the faculty committee conducting the review should be set forth in the unit’s plan of organization.

Description of the Comprehensive Post-Tenure Review Portfolio

At minimum, the portfolio should include:

  • A personal statement from the faculty member,
  • Factual information in faculty activity reports and/or CV,
  • Teaching evaluations, to include peer evaluations, and
  • Materials from all periodic reviews since the last comprehensive review.

Performance Criteria

Each unit should determine and define the criteria for satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance.

Incentives for Outstanding Performance Ratings

Units should determine and develop incentives for the recognition of meritorious performance, such as the initiation of promotional opportunities, nominations for internal and external awards, and other forms of distinction.

Notice of Possible Actions to be Taken Following Unsatisfactory Performance Ratings

Units should determine and develop action plans for unsatisfactory performance. These action plans should include the development of a detailed outcomes plan with required deliverables and due dates. The action plans might also include service expectations, teaching improvement strategies, loss of sabbatical privilege, or other relevant details and expectations.

Description of Evaluative Report

Units should produce a written “peer appraisal” report (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)) and overall categorical rating, such as satisfactory and unsatisfactory.

Description of the Process and Timeframes

  • Portfolio of materials is submitted to peer review committee as per unit requirements.
  • Peer review committee submits peer-authored written report to faculty member.
  • Faculty member submits optional written “response to the review committee within 14 calendar days of receipt of the appraisal” (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)).
  • The “portfolio - consisting, at the minimum, of the faculty member's written report, the review committee's appraisal, and the faculty member's response, if that option has been exercised - shall be submitted to the unit administrator” (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)).
  • Faculty member meets with Chair [Dean in non-departmentalized colleges] to discuss final evaluation (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)).
  • If deemed appropriate by the Chair [Dean in non-departmentalized colleges], faculty member and administrator discuss and agree on a “firm written development plan, with timetable, for enhancing meritorious work” and a procedure for evaluation of progress at fixed intervals (UMCP Policy II-1.20(A)). Development/outcomes plan must be summarized in a written report signed by both the faculty member and the administrator.
  • Chair [Dean in non-departmentalized colleges] issues final evaluation.
  • The final evaluation and development/outcomes plan should be forwarded to the Dean’s office [Provost’s office for non-departmentalized colleges] by February 15. The portfolio is made available for the Dean’s [Provost’s] review, upon request.
  • Notification of the outcome of the review should be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs by the Dean by June 1.

Appeal Procedures

  • In the event the faculty member disagrees with the final evaluation, a written appeal may be filed with the Dean [Provost, for non-departmentalized colleges] by March 1.
  • The Dean [Provost] must review the portfolio, the peer-authored written report, the faculty member’s optional written response, the Chair’s [Dean’s] final written evaluation, and the faculty member’s written appeal, and meet separately with the faculty member and the administrator to discuss the evaluation. The Dean [Provost] may also elect to meet separately with the Chair [Dean] and post-tenure review committee chair.
  • The Dean [Provost] should issue a decision on the appeal by May 1. No further appeal can be granted.
  • Following completion of the appeal, if any, a notification of completion of the review should be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs by the Dean by June 1.

Notice of Where Evaluation Reports are Maintained

All materials relating to the comprehensive post-tenure review are maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file in the department. The Dean’s office [Provost’s office for non-departmentalized colleges] maintains the reports.

Using the Post-Tenure Review System

Information for Administrators

Login to the system using the link to the left. You should see a list of your department faculty, along with information about their years at rank or since the last review. There is also a column that displays information about the most recent review. You can click on the column headings to sort this table.

To see a list of reviews due this year and next year, choose "List Reviews Due" from the Reviews menu.

To add information about a review, click the faculty member's name. On the form that appears, choose from the "Review Status" dropdown list. If the review has been completed, you must also choose a Review Result from the appropriate dropdown list. If choices on this dropdown list are not correct for your unit (e.g., choices are Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, etc. when your unit uses Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory), choose Add / Edit Units from the Utilities menu. Click the appropriate unit name (at the bottom of the form) to change the rubric choices.

You can enter comments as appropriate. These comments are visible to you as the unit head and to the department manager for your unit. Administrators and managers for your college can also see the comments. You can upload review documents (PDF only) if desired. Enter a distinctive title for each document (e.g., Review Portfolio) and then use the blue button labeled "Browse for File" to navigate to the document. When you click Submit, the document will be stored with the review information. As with the comments, these documents are visible to you, your manager, and college-level administrators and managers.

If you should have any comments or problems with the system, please contact the Office of Faculty Affairs or the system administrator.