SOM Bylaws - Article VIII; Standing Rule 8

BYLAWS - SCHOOL OF MUSIC
University of Missouri-Columbia
(Last Amended December 9, 2004)

ARTICLE VIII: STANDING RULES

Standing Rule 8. Annual and Five-Year Review of Tenured Faculty

Annual Review

1.1	As required by the Board of Curators (Collected Rules and Regulations, Academic Tenure Regulations, 310.015—Procedures for Review of Faculty Performance), every tenured faculty member will submit to the Director a signed annual report describing his or her accomplishments in teaching, research/creative achievement, and service. This report may be the same as the one that is submitted to the Faculty Accomplishment System and evaluated for annual merit increases in salary.
1.2	The criteria for evaluating teaching, research/creative achievement, and service are consistent with those required for tenure and promotion as described in Standing Rule 2.2—Criteria for Promotion and Tenure.
1.3	Tenured faculty are expected to teach effectively, have an active research/creative achievement agenda, and engage in appropriate service to the University and the profession.
1.4	The Director will review each annual report and evaluate the accomplishments of each faculty member as satisfactory or unsatisfactory in each of the areas of teaching, research/creative achievement, and service. The Director also will provide an overall evaluation of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
1.5	If the overall evaluation is unsatisfactory, the Director and faculty member must have a face-to-face discussion of the evaluation. The faculty member will sign the written evaluation to acknowledge its receipt and may submit a written response to the evaluation. The Director will provide a copy of the signed evaluation to the faculty member within one month after the faculty member has signed the evaluation.

Five-Year Review

2.1	As also required by the Board of Curators, each tenured faculty member will resubmit to the Director the annual reports and evaluation statements for the preceding five years, along with a concise summary statement of teaching, research/creative achievement, and service for the preceding five-year period, and a current curriculum vitae for evaluation.
2.2	The criteria for evaluating teaching, research/creative achievement, and service in the five-year review will be consistent with those required for tenure and promotion.
2.3	The Director will review the body of work spanning the five-year period and evaluate it as satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
2.4	Procedures to be followed in the event of an unsatisfactory evaluation are described in section 310.015 of the Academic Tenure Regulations.
2.5	The Director is responsible for maintaining the schedule for five-year evaluations. Tenured faculty members will be notified by the Director no later than May 1 of their fourth year that a fifth-year review will be undertaken during the following Winter semester.

Following the completion of each annual review and the five-year review, the Director will transmit his/her evaluation decision to the faculty member. In the event of an unsatisfactory evaluation in the five-year review, the Director’s evaluation will be sent to the Music Personnel Committee, which will perform its own five-year review and provide an independent assessment. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the Music Personnel Committee judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory.

In the event that both the Director and the Music Personnel Committee determine the performance of a faculty member to be unsatisfactory for the five-year period, the report will be forwarded to the Dean of the College of Arts and Science. The Dean will review the report and provide an assessment of the performance of the faculty member. The five-year evaluation process will be complete if the Dean judges the performance of the faculty member to be satisfactory.

At every level of review, the faculty member will be provided with a copy of any written report that is part of these proceedings and will have the right of appeal of any evaluations, decisions, or recommendations to the next level of the process.

If a two-thirds majority of the members of the Music Personnel Committee and the Dean consider the performance of the faculty member to be unsatisfactory, a plan for professional development will be written. This plan will be developed by the faculty member, the Personnel Committee, a mutually-agreed-upon mediator from outside the School of Music, and the Director. This development plan will have clear and attainable objectives for the faculty member and may include a reallocation of the faculty member's effort and a commitment of institutional resources to the plan. This plan will be signed by the faculty member, the Director, the mediator, and the Dean. The development phase will begin when the necessary resources as described in the development plan are provided.

A faculty member who has received an overall unsatisfactory five-year evaluation by the Director, Music Personnel Committee, and the Dean may not appeal the process of developing a professional plan. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the plan that has been developed, he/she may appeal to the next administrative level for help in the formulation of an acceptable development plan.

A faculty member with a plan for professional development will submit an annual progress report to the Director for three successive years after the plan has been initiated. The Director will review the report and provide a written annual evaluation on the progress of the faculty member toward the objectives stated in the development plan. If the Director finds satisfactory progress for any two of the three years, then the process will cease and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.

If the Director does not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the Director will provide the annual reports and evaluations to the Music Personnel Committee and the mediator. If the Personnel Committee that includes the mediator finds satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.

If both the Director and the Music Personnel Committee that includes the mediator do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the Director will provide annual reports and evaluations to the Dean. If the Dean finds satisfactory progress in two of the three years of the development plan, the process ceases and the faculty member will begin a new five-year cycle.

If the Director, Music Personnel Committee that includes the mediator, and the Dean do not find satisfactory progress in two of the three years, then the five-year evaluations plus the three years of progress reports and evaluations by the Director on the development plan will be forwarded to the campus committee on Tenure and Promotion and to the Provost or Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Each will review the reports and will recommend separately to the Chancellor that: 1) an additional two-year development plan be written and implemented in consultation with the faculty member and the originating departmental committee, or 2) the faculty member be considered for dismissal for cause proceedings.

Any faculty member may request participation in a formal development plan (as described in 6 above) after two or more consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations. In addition, the Director will strongly encourage faculty who have had three consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations to participate in a development plan.

If it is deemed by the Chancellor that the performance of the faculty member during the periods covered in Items 6-12 above constitutes sufficient grounds for termination for cause, dismissal for cause may be initiated, and if initiated will proceed in accordance with the procedures for dismissal for cause described in section 310.060.

This procedure for review and development of faculty performance does not substitute for the dismissal for cause procedures stated in section 310.060.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 310.015 B.2. of the Collected Rules and Regulations, this procedure does not impose additional requirements upon the University prior to initiating dismissal for cause procedures as stated in section 310.060.

Should any substantive difference be found between this document and others pertaining to post-tenure review, the definitive version of the rules pertaining to post-tenure review may be found in 310.015 of the Collected Rules and Regulations of the Curators of the University of Missouri.

Last updated: 28 December 2004