Current wording in Faculty Handbook (2011 Version)
6.05 Post Tenure Review
Each tenured faculty member undergoes annual reviews. The faculty member’s annual review is integral in determining performance. The Department Chair/Division Head will use the five-point scale for annual reviews (unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good or outstanding), but for the purposes of reporting to the Provost’s Office, overall performance will be summarized on a three-point scale (superior, adequate, inadequate). If a faculty member is rated as below satisfactory in a majority of applicable performance categories on the five-point scale, they will receive an “inadequate” overall evaluation on the three-point scale. Each year, the faculty member must be made aware of specific requirements to attain an adequate annual review so that he or she is given the chance to meet these specific requirements.
Recommended Changes in Wording Approved by the Faculty Senate August 12th, 2014. This version did not advance further than Senate approval (stopped in the Provost’s office)
6.05 Post Tenure Review
Each tenured faculty member undergoes annual review of academic performance. The Department Chair/Division Director will use the five-point scale for annual reviews (unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good or outstanding; see MUSC Tenured Faculty Performance Evaluation Form [Annual Review], Appendix). For the purposes of reporting to the Provost’s Office, overall performance will be summarized on a three-point scale (superior, adequate, inadequate). If a faculty member is rated as below satisfactory in a majority of applicable performance categories on the five-point scale, s/he will receive an “inadequate” overall evaluation on the three-point scale. Each year, the Department Chair/Division Director must inform the faculty member of the specific requirements for attaining an adequate or superior annual review in the coming year. Requirements perceived to be unrealistic or unattainable may be grieved under policies detailed in Section 8 of the Faculty Handbook.
Proposed Revised Wording- Dr. Sothmann, proposed Jan 2016 **changes from the current wording in the Faculty Handbook are highlighted
6.05 Post Tenure Review
Each tenured faculty member undergoes annual review of academic performance. The Department Chair/Division Director will use the five-point scale for annual reviews (unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good or outstanding; see MUSC Tenured Faculty Performance Evaluation Form [Annual Review], Appendix ). For purposes of reporting to the Provost’s Office, overall performance will be summarized on a three-point scale (superior, adequate, inadequate). If a faculty member is rated as below satisfactory in categories that represent the majority the faculty member’s total effort, s/he will receive an “inadequate” overall evaluation on the three-point scale. Each year the Department Chair/Division Director must inform the faculty member of the specific requirements for attaining an adequate annual review in the coming year. Section 9.04 (Distribution of Faculty Activity) details the procedures for determining the distribution of faculty activity. The distribution of faculty effort and the performance necessary for adequate performance will be detailed annually in the development of the faculty contract. Any dispute regarding distribution of effort and/or performance will be resolved according to section 8.11 (Appointment Contract Dispute Resolution). The general grievance policy in sections 8.01-8.10 is reserved for section 6.05 (4) (d) of post tenure review.