The University of Iowa
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
The Department of Biology

Policy and Procedure Handbooks

Faculty Handbook of Departmental Procedures

 
III. Procedures for Review of Faculty
A. Annual Review of Non-Tenured Faculty (Assistant Professors)
B. Third-Year Contract Renewal Review
C. Reviews for Tenure and/or Promotion
1. Chair's Instructions to the Department Consulting Group (DCG)
D. Review of Tenured Faculty
E. Post-Tenure Effort Allocation
F. Faculty Salary Recommendations
III. Procedures for Review of Faculty
Faculty members being reviewed should be mindful of the timing of reviews and should respond in a timely way to requests for information from the Department Chair or from review committees. Each faculty member must submit materials for use in his or her periodic reviews. For this purpose, the faculty member must maintain an updated curriculum vitae, keep student evaluations of teaching on file, and preserve copies of scholarly publications, records of creative work, and copies of teaching materials. Specific guidelines regarding procedures for review of faculty are stated on the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences website.
A. Annual Review of Non-Tenured Faculty (Assistant Professors)
Each year the DEO or a departmental committee reviews every non-tenured, tenure-track faculty member in the department. The review provides the faculty member with an assessment of his or her performance in teaching, scholarly or creative work, and professional service. The purpose of the annual review is to inform the faculty member being reviewed of his/her progress and provide guidance in meeting the standards for promotion with tenure. Guidelines are detailed on the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences website.
B. Third-Year Contract Renewal Review
In the third year, the faculty member receives a comprehensive review covering the entire period since the initial appointment. The purpose of the review is to assess whether the faculty member is making appropriate progress toward a tenure review that is likely to have positive results. Additional information and detailed guidelines can be found on the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences website. A document containing departmental target dates is provided to candidates at the beginning of the review process.
C. Reviews for Tenure and/or Promotion

Process and Timetable

Reviews for tenure and/or promotion are governed by the Collegiate/University Procedural Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Decision-making, available on the College's website. The web page contains all department-specific additions to the procedures, including those that are specific to the Department of Biology. A document containing departmental target dates in the review process is provided to candidates for tenure and/or promotion early in the promotion process.

Extensions of the Probationary Period

According to University policy [Operations Manual, III-22.8] an automatic one-year extension of the probationary period is granted if a faculty member becomes a parent during the first five years of the probationary period or became a parent within two years before appointment. In some cases, the probationary period may also be extended when a faculty member takes an approved unpaid leave for personal or professional reasons or because of a significant but temporary impediment such as a serious illness. Please consult the CLAS website and the Provost website for details.

1. Chair's Instructions to the Department Consulting Group (DCG)

The Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Review Committee will read instructions to the DCG at the beginning of the meeting.

  1. According to CLAS regulations I will chair the committee. The Assistant to the DEO and I both take notes and try to be make sure we call on you in the order you signal us. Please be patient with us.
  2. The DEO will ensure procedural correctness and can provide factual information, but cannot participation in the discussion or the vote. He will not be involved in the writing of the report based on this meeting.
  3. Discussion of the candidate's qualifications can only be made in relation to college and department criteria or benchmarks. It is inappropriate to make comparisons with past or present candidates.
  4. The summary report:
    • It is based solely on the discussion that takes place.
    • It will reflect the range of opinions expressed, both positive and negative
    • CLAS explicitly directs that it include the DCG's analysis of the external evaluations of the candidate's scholarship. The reason for this is that when we wrote the Promotion and Tenure report, we did not have access to these documents.
    • The report will not violate DCG members' expectations of confidentiality. No comments will be attributed to identifiable DCG members. DCG members are also expected to keep all discussion confidential. Disclosure of confidential review matters by faculty maybe considered a violation of the University Policy on Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility.
    • The report will include a recommendation for or against tenure based on the criterion that a 60% majority defines a positive recommendation for promotion.
    • All DCG members will receive a draft copy of the summary report and edits can be submitted to me. The turnaround on this is very fast. Each of you will get a copy of the final version.
    • Any faculty member on the DCG may submit a further confidential evaluation to the DEO. A form is available on the CLAS website.
    • The candidate will receive a duplicate of the summary report including the vote. Any confidential evaluations remain so.

If an extension was granted the following should be read:

The candidate received a one-year extension of the standard tenure-clock, approved by the College and the University. This extension does not change the normal criteria for a tenurable record, nor does it imply that the candidate will be held to a standard higher than the one he would have had to meet if the tenure decision had been made in the year when it was originally scheduled.

D. Review of Tenured Faculty
Timing of Reviews

All tenured faculty will be reviewed every five years measured from the date of their previous review. The DEO will oversee the review process. Associate Professors may request a review for the purposes of promotion at any time (which would have the effect of re-setting the clock).

Purpose of Review

The post-tenure review provides the faculty member undergoing the review the opportunity for self-assessment and assessment by a committee of peers consisting of at least two faculty members. The DEO selects the review committee and may appoint a faculty member from another department, but may not serve as a member. The self-assessment will consist of a narrative of efforts over the previous five years and plans for activities over the subsequent five years. The committee’s assessment must result in recommendations to the faculty member and the department based on the entire record submitted for the review. This type of review is defined by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences as an extended review For details, please refer to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences website.
E. Post-Tenure Effort Allocation
Each year, the DEO meets with faculty individually to discuss the distribution of their effort for the following year within the established unit norms: teaching 40%, research (approximately) 45%, and service 15%. For more detailed information regarding the University’s policies on Post-Tenure Effort Allocation, refer to the at CLAS website.
F. Faculty Salary Recommendations
General Policy

Annual adjustments to salary are recommended to the Chair by the department’s elected Executive Committee members, individually or in a group determination with the Chair. Adjustments are based largely on the information supplied in the faculty member’s CV, but also takes into account the two- to five-year perspective of a faculty member's activity. The review by the Executive Committee should take place during late February or early March. Final authority for salary adjustments rests with the Dean. Each year, the Dean’s office also requests an updated curriculum vitae, which the Dean uses to monitor the progress of the department and to assess the validity of salary adjustments recommended by the Department.

Point System

The annual evaluation takes the form of an assignment of “points” in four categories: teaching (40 points maximum), research (40 points maximum), service (15 points maximum), and “other” (5 points maximum). For both teaching and research, each evaluator must rank at least one faculty member at the maximum value (40 points). The scores are discussed among the departmental Executive Committee and Chair and an average point total is calculated. The points allocated to each of the three categories are adjusted to reflect 100% of the time, taking into consideration the actual division of effort in the portfolio.