Skip to Search Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content
Handbook of Operating Procedures
Chapter 2 - Faculty and Academics
Publication Date: July 15, 2013
Responsible Executive: VP for Academic Affairs


2.22 Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty


I. POLICY STATEMENT


The Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation (CPE) of tenured faculty is a significant part of the faculty member’s long-term career development, with the objective that a tenured faculty’s career will demonstrate a record of leadership through sustained performance of the highest caliber in the areas of teaching, research, and service.


II. RATIONALE


This policy sets forth the process for Comprehensive Periodic Evaluations of tenured faculty members.


III. SCOPE


This policy applies to all tenured faculty at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA).


IV. WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR THIS POLICY


http://www.utsa.edu/hop/chapter2/2-22.html


V. RELATED STATUTES, POLICIES, REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS


UTSA or UT System Policies or the Board of Regents' Rules and Regulations

  1. University of Texas System (UT System) Board of Regents' Rule 31001, Faculty Appointments and Titles
  2. UT System Board of Regents' Rule 31007, Tenure
  3. UT System Board of Regents' Rule 31102, Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
  4. UT System Board of Regents' Rule 31008, Termination of a Faculty Member
  5. UTSA HOP policy 2.10, Faculty Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
  6. UTSA HOP policy 2.13, Termination and Non-reappointment of a Faculty Member

VI. CONTACTS


If you have questions about HOP policy 2.22, Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, please contact the following office:

Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (Provost)
210-458-4110


VII. DEFINITIONS


Tenure – A status of continuing appointment as a member of the faculty at UTSA.

Tenure Titles - Except for the titles Regental Professor and Regents’ Research Scholar,the only titles to be used henceforth in which faculty members may hold tenure are as follows: (a) Professor and (b) Associate Professor. 


VIII. RESPONSIBILITIES


  1. Faculty Member
    1. Submits CPE materials to department chair
    2. Provides additional materials, if requested by Department CPE Review Committee or College CPE Committee
  2. Department CPE Review Committee
    1. Examines faculty member’s submitted materials
    2. Provides faculty member opportunity to meet with Department CPE Review Committee
    3. Makes determination as to faculty member's continuing contribution to mission of department and college
  3. Department CPE Review Committee Chair
    1. Convenes meetings
    2. Communicates Department CPE Review Committee's review results to department chair in writing
  4. Department Chair
    1. Initiates election of Department CPE Review Committee
    2. Transmits CPE materials submitted by faculty member to the Department CPE Review Committee
    3. Reviews CPE materials submitted by faculty member and makes determination as to faculty member’s continuing contribution to the mission of the department  and college
    4. Transmits Department CPE Review Committee review results and own recommendation to dean
  5. Dean
    1. Reviews the department's recommendation and makes decision regarding result of the evaluation
    2. If the faculty member “Fails to meet expectations” in any category, asks the faculty member to provide further evidence of contributions or activity in the areas of concern
    3. If the result is “Unsatisfactory” overall or “Unsatisfactory” in any category of evaluation, implements steps described in Section IX.C of this policy
    4. Communicates results to provsot and president
    5. With provost's approval, informs faculty member and department chair of final result of review
  6. College CPE Review Committee (if required - see Section IXB.3.i)
    1. Reviews submitted CPE materials, focusing on unsatisfactory portions
    2. Requests additional material from faculty member, if warranted
    3. Submits evaluation and analysis to dean
  7. Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the UTSA Faculty Senate
    1. Monitors the CPE review process and reports results annually to the Faculty Senate
    2. Recommends revisions to process, if warranted
  8. Provost
    1. Provides faculty member with notice of upcoming CPE review
    2. Approves communication of final results of the CPE review to faculty member and department chair

VIII. PROCEDURES


      1. General Provisions
        1. UTSA’s CPE policy is in accordance with The University of Texas System (UT System) Board of Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Rule 31102, Evaluation of Tenured Faculty.
        2. The criteria for CPE will be developed at the department level by the chair and faculty in consultation with the dean of the college. The criteria should be consistent with college and university missions and goals as well as departmental guidelines for annual evaluation. The criteria should be reflected in annual workload plans.
        3. Review Categories - Each faculty member being reviewed shall be placed in one of the following categories:
          1. exceeds expectations
          2. meets expectations
          3. fails to meet expectations
          4. unsatisfactory
      2. Review Process and Timetable
        1. Review Frequency
          1. Faculty will be subject to a CPE every six (6) years following the award of tenure.
          2. When they coincide, the promotion review includes the CPE.
          3. When the CPE coincides with a scheduled review of an endowed position, the information provided for the review of the endowed position may be incorporated into the appropriate element of the CPE summary statement and/or other submitted materials.
          4. The Office of the Provost will provide the faculty member with notice of intent to undertake a CPE at least six (6) months prior to the review.
          5. The evaluation may not be waived for any tenured faculty member but may be deferred in rare circumstances when the review process will coincide with approved leave. The review period begins with the deadline for the faculty member to submit his/her CPE materials and concludes six months after the deadline. If a faculty member is granted leave after submitting his/her CPE materials but still within the review period, the faculty member may request that the CPE process continue as scheduled.
          6. No deferral of review of an active faculty member may extend beyond one (1) year from the scheduled review.
          7. Periods when a faculty member is on unpaid leave, medical leave, or assigned a full-time administrative position will not be counted toward the six-year period between successive CPEs, within the following guidelines:
            1. If the total time on leave or assigned to a full-time administrative position is more than four months, the CPE will be delayed for one year, unless the dean and provost approve a longer delay.
            2. If a period of leave of at least 3 months duration occurs within the six months immediately prior to a scheduled CPE review period, the CPE will be delayed by at least one year, unless the faculty member requests that the CPE not be delayed.
            3. Other circumstances that might be considered cause for modifying the CPE schedule are subject to the approvals of the dean and provost.
        2. Department CPE Review Committee
          1. The CPE will be carreid out at the department level by a Department CPE Review Committee that will include at least three (3) tenured faculty members at an equivalent or higher rank of each of the faculty member(s) undergoing a CPE.
          2. When there are fewer than three (3) tenured faculty members at an equivalent or higher rank of the faculty member(s) undergoing a CPE, the department chair, in consultation with the dean, may invite full professors from other departments to participate as members of the Department CPE Review Committee.
          3. When the faculty member undergoing a CPE is the department chair, the dean shall appoint another faculty member at or above the academic rank of the department chair to serve in the role of department chair for this process.
          4. The Department CPE Review Committee is elected each fall, only in those years when a CPE is to take place within the department, by the voting members of the department faculty.
          5. The chair of the Department CPE Review Committee will be elected by the committee members.
          6. Faculty members with part-time administrative positions are eligible to serve on the Department CPE Review Committee.
        3. CPE Process
          1. Faculty will be evaluated using Table 1 Evaluation Rating Categories for Faculty Member’s Performance on Individual Areas of Research, Teaching, and Service in UTSA Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOP) policy 2.11, Annual Faculty Performance Appraisal for Merit Consideration using the criteria developed as in section IX.A.2.
          2. As specified in Regents’ Rule 31102, the faculty member being evaluated will submit a curriculum vita, including a summary statement of professional accomplishments, and shall submit or arrange for the submission of annual reports and teaching evaluations. The faculty member may provide copies of a statement of professional goals, a proposed professional development plan, and any other additional materials the faculty member deems appropriate. The faculty member will also submit any other supporting materials indicated in the Office of the Provost’s guidelines for CPEs.
          3. Faculty members appointed to part-time administrative positions will be reviewed under this process, with appropriate consideration given to the demands of administrative assignments and their impact on the level of research activity, courses taught, and the extent of service contributions.
          4. The Department CPE Review Committee will examine the submitted materials, provide the faculty member being evaluated with an opportunity to meet with the committee, and make a determination concerning the quality of the faculty member’s continuing contribution to the mission of the department and college using the criteria developed by the department as described above in Section IX.A.2. The Department CPE Review Committee will consider all activities and accomplishments of the faculty member from the previous six (6) years, even if less time has elapsed since the previous CPE. Each CPE will be conducted independently and will be based only on the documented performance during the evaluation period.
          5. If the Department CPE Review Committee concludes that the faculty member “Fails to meet expectations” or is “Unsatisfactory” in any category, the committee may ask the faculty member to provide further evidence of contributions or activity in the areas of concern.
          6. The chair of the Department CPE Review Committee will communicate the CPE Review Committee's recommendations for each individual category, as well as the overall recommendation, in a written report to the department chair. In cases in which the Department CPE Review Committee's recommendation is "Exceeds expectations", "Meets expectations" or "Fails to meet expectations", the report will consist only of a statement of the recommendation with signatures of all the committee members. If the Department CPE Review Committee's recommendation includes an "unsatisfactory" in any category or for the overall recommendation, then the report will include a summary of the basis for the committee's "Unsatisfactory" recommendation. The department chair or dean may request a summary of the basis of the committee's findings if either concludes that a faculty member's performance is "Unsatisfactory" while the committee reported a different result.
          7. The department chair will transmit his or her written recommendation to the dean and to the faculty member, along with the Department CPE Review Committee's report.
          8. Upon review of the department chair's recommendation, the dean will make a decision concerning the results of the CPE.
          9. If the dean's decision contains an “Unsatisfactory” in any category or overall, then the dean may appoint, either at the request of the faculty member or if the dean believes one is needed, a College CPE Review Committee to review the submitted materials. The faculty member may also request that the College CPE Review Committee not be formed. If a College CPE Review Committee is appointed then:
            1. The faculty member will be given the opportunity to provide further evidence of contributions or activity in the area(s) of concern to the College CPE Review Committee;
            2. The College CPE Review Committee will submit its analysis to the dean; and
            3. The dean will then determine results of the CPE and, if necessary, will recommend any follow-up actions to the provost for approval.
          10. The dean will communicate the results of the CPE to the provost for review.
          11. Once approved by the provost, the dean will communicate the final CPE results in writing to the faculty member, the department chair, the provost and the president.
      3. Outcome of Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
        1. Faculty will be evaluated using the evaluation categories described in HOP policy 2.11, Annual Faculty Performance Appraisal for Merit Pay Consideration. Individual evaluations for teaching, research, and service will be combined for an overall evaluation as described in HOP policy 2.11. However, results of the evaluation will reflect performance over the six-year evaluation period in individual categories as well as overall performance.
        2. If the final result of the CPE is “Exceeds expectations,” “Meets expectations,” or “Fails to meet expectations,” the faculty member will not undergo another CPE review for six (6) years unless a comprehensive review is required as a result of subsequent Annual Appraisals per HOP policy 2.11.
        3. If a faculty member receives a rating of “Exceeds expectations”, on their CPE, the CPE result may be used as the basis for nomination for awards, additional merit payment or increase, or other forms of performance recognition.
        4. If a faculty member receives a rating of “Fails to meet expectations” on their CPE, it may indicate that the faculty member could benefit from additional support, such as teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, mentoring in research issues or service expectations, or adjustment of assigned duties.  Such arrangements should be arrived at by agreement with the faculty member with approval by the dean. The faculty member’s progress in response to the additional support or adjustments in assigned duties will be monitored through the annual evaluation process.
        5. If a final CPE contains an “Unsatisfactory” in any category of review, the dean in consultation with the department chair and the Chair of the Department CPE Review Committee may recommend a change in the faculty member’s workload agreement, may place the faculty member (including those with part-time administrative appointments) on a Faculty Development Plan (FDP), as described in section D below, or recommend additional review by the provost as described below in section C.6.  
          1. Failure to meet the goals laid out in a FDP may result in an additional review by the provost.
          2. In the event that a workload agreement change is the outcome of the CPE, the CPE will be considered to have been concluded in a satisfactory manner, and the next scheduled CPE will occur in six (6) years unless triggered by the provisions of HOP policy 2.11.
        6. If the overall result of a CPE is an “Unsatisfactory” rating, this may result in an additional review by the provost, or designee, to determine if good cause exists for termination under UTSA HOP policy 2.13 and the Regents’ Rules 31008 and31102.
        7. The CPE outcome is not subject to resolution under HOP policy 2.34, Faculty Grievance Procedures.  The outcome may be appealed only through the process outlined in this policy
          1. The faculty member must submit a written appeal to the provost no later than 20 work days following receipt of written notification of the outcome of the CPE. The written appeal should describe and include as attachments any additional material that should be considered in the appeal.
          2. The provost will provide a written response to the faculty member within 20 work days.
          3. The provost's decision is final.
      4. Establishment and Implementation of a Facutly Development Plan (FDP)
        1. The FDP is developed through the following steps:
          1. The department chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will draft a Faculty Development Plan which
            1. Outlines clear, long-term objectives for developmental improvement and specifies short-term criteria for assessing progress towards those long-term objectives,
            2. Establishes a finite development timeline for meeting the short-term criteria of the FDP, and
            3. Should ideally establish meaningful short-term criteria that can be met within one (1) or two (2) years, unless a longer timeline is approved by the dean.
          2. The FDP is forwarded to the dean for approval.
          3. The FDP is signed by the dean, the department chair, and the faculty member.
        2. Progress toward meeting the goals of an FDP will be evaluated annually.
          1. The FDP will include a deadline by which the faculty member must submit a report of their progress for the first year of the FDP to the current Department CPE Review Committee. The deadline for submission of the initial report will be determined such that it occurs no sooner than twelve (12) months and no later than fifteen (15) months after the start of the FDP. Reports will be submitted at the end of each subsequent year of the FDP. The report will focus on criteria specified in the FDP.
          2. The current Department CPE Review Committee will annually evaluate the faculty member’s progress toward meeting the criteria specified in the FDP and report that progress as satisfactory or unsatisfactory to the department chair.
          3. The chair will transmit the Department CPE Review Committee’s evaluation to the dean, along with the chair’s written evaluation and the faculty member’s report.
          4. Based on the Department CPE Review Committee’s evaluation and the department chair’s evaluation, and an examination of any submitted documentary evidence, the dean will make the final decision concerning the outcome of the annual FDP progress evaluation and provide written reasons for his/her decision. The dean may decide any of the following:
            1. Successful completion: If the criteria of the FDP have been met, the dean may conclude the FDP at any time during the developmental timeline.
            2. Continuation: If progress is satisfactory, but the agreed-upon criteria of the FDP have not been fully met, then the FDP will continue as planned until the end of the developmental timeline.
            3. Unsatisfactory progress: If the past year's progress is determined to be unsatisfactory, written notice will be provided to the faculty member of that result, with an explanation of the performance areas found to be deficient.
        3. Final Resolution of FDP
          1. At the conclusion of the FDP, the faculty member will submit a report of all accomplishments over the course of the entire time frame established in the FDP (unless the dean has previously determined that the faculty member has met the criteria of the FDP).
          2. The report will be reviewed as described in section D.2. above.
          3. If the dean determines that the faculty member has satisfactorily met the criteria of the FDP, then the dean will notify the faculty member in writing and indicate the schedule for the next CPE review in six (6) years.
          4. If the dean determines that the faculty member has not satisfactorily met the criteria of the initial FDP, the dean, in consultation with the department chair may:
            1. Realign the faculty member's expected effort distribution (the percentage effort devoted to teaching, research, and service) to reduce responsibility for the performance area of concern, or
            2. Extend the period of the FDP for 1 year with revised criteria as outlined in subsection D.1.a.
            3. Initiate a second FDP with revised criteria, in consultation with the department chair and faculty member.
            4. The total timeline for any single FDP shall not exceed two (2) years unless approved by the dean. The total timeline for two successive FDP's shall not exceed three (3) years unless approved by the provost.
          5. Failure to meet the criteria laid out in two (2) successive FDPs may result in an additional review by the provost or a designee to determine if good cause exists for termination under HOP policy 2.13, and the Regents' Rules 31008 and 31102.
      5. Monitoring of the CPE Process - The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the UTSA Faculty Senate is charged with monitoring this review process and with reporting its findings annually to the Faculty Senate and the UTSA administration. If its findings warrant, the Academic Freedome and Tenure Committee will recommend revisions of the procedures for faculty review at UTSA, the system-wide guidelines for post-tenure review of faculty, or both.
      6. Protection of Individual Rights - Nothing in this institutional evaluation policy, or its interpretation, will be interpreted or applied to infringe on the tenure system, academic freedom, due process  or other protected rights, nor to establish new term-tenure systems or to require faculty to re-establish their credentials for tenure.

      X. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION


      None


      XI. FORMS AND TOOLS/ONLINE PROCESSES


      None


      XII. APPENDIX


      None