Faculty Annual Review and Post-Tenure Review


  1. An annual performance review of all faculty members is conducted by the Dean of Arts & Sciences and the department Chair as part of the salary-setting process. This review includes student evaluations of each course taught, supplemented in appropriate cases by teaching portfolios, peer attendance of classes, or other measures of teaching performance. As part of this review, each faculty member must submit an annual report in a prescribed format that summarizes teaching, research, service, and outside consulting activities for the reporting period as well as other information deemed relevant by the Provost, Dean, or department Chair.
  2. Negative and positive findings by the Chair should be communicated to the faculty member. Written notification of deficiencies will normally be sent to the faculty member and the Dean, and a copy kept in the Department.
  3. The annual review will consider, as appropriate, issues of long-term research, instructional programs, or service which cannot be adequately represented on a strictly annual basis.


  1. Remediation Phase:
    1. If a faculty member fails to meet reasonable expectations for professional performance, normally over a period of at least two years, the Dean may require the faculty member to undergo a formal Remediation Period which can range from one to three years.
    2. At the beginning of the Remediation Period, the Dean, after consultation with the Chair, the faculty member, and others as appropriate, shall set out written performance expectations.
    3. The faculty member will promptly develop a plan for meeting those expectations, and submit it for approval to the Dean and the Chair. The faculty member will normally submit to the Chair an annual report outlining progress toward meeting performance expectations. The Dean may also request evaluation by the Chair at any other time as appropriate. The faculty member's failure to act in good faith, including but not limited to failure by the faculty member to submit the progress report on time, to submit other required documentation, such as teaching evaluations, or to engage in scheduled remediation activities, such as visits to the Teaching Resource Center, can effectively cut short the Remediation phase and initiate the Peer Review phase.
    4. If the final goals of remediation are met at any time prior to the end of the designated Remediation Period, the Dean may, in consultation with the Chair and others as appropriate, conclude the Remediation Period and the Post-Tenure Review process itself.
  2. Peer Review Phase
    1. If the Dean, in consultation with the Chair or others as appropriate, determines that the faculty member has not complied with the written remediation expectations, the Dean will appoint an Advisory Review Committee. It shall consist of at least three faculty members, at least one of whom must be a faculty member from the Department and may also include some or all of the following:In addition the Dean may consider appointing a member of the committee (other than the faculty member him/herself) proposed by the faculty member under review.
      1. an additional faculty member chosen from within the Department by the Chair
      2. non-departmental senior faculty member (s)
      3. person (s) from outside the University
    2. The Committee will be appointed in September or January and asked to report within six months unless an extension is granted by the Dean.
    3. The Committee's charge will be to report on its assessment of the professional performance of the faculty member and to make recommendations as appropriate.
    4. The Advisory Review Committee may take such actions as it deems necessary to carry out its charge, including but not limited to:
      1. interviewing the faculty member, the Chair, department members and others, as appropriate
      2. assembling and judging documentation resembling a dossier for promotion to Full Professor, normally including letters from outside reviewers and written exchanges between the faculty member and the Chair and/ or the Dean.
      3. The faculty member shall have the right to add other information and documentation in a timely manner.
  3. Dean's Recommendation Phase
    Upon receiving and reviewing the Committee's report and recommendation, the Dean may:
    1. take no action and conclude the review.
    2. impose corrective sanctions having to do with faculty rank, compensation, assignment of responsibilities, or other conditions of employment.
    3. recommend to the Provost that the faculty member be suspended or terminated from employment at the University. Such sanctions will be in accord with University policy on AAnnual Faculty Performance Reviews@ as stated in the Faculty Handbook: http://minerva.acc.virginia.edu/~provost/reviews.htm
    4. other such actions as the Dean may deem appropriate.
  4. Grievance or appeal
    Nothing in this policy shall abridge the faculty member's right to appeal or file a grievance as provided by the University grievance policy, http://minerva.acc.virginia.edu/~Provost/handbook.htm