WHEREAS, the Faculty Assembly’s Faculty Development Committee has given considered attention to principles underlying post-tenure review policies, and

 

WHEREAS, UNC’s existing policies on post-tenure review were developed in 1997, and are embodied in University Code section 400.3.3, along with associated guidelines, and

 

WHEREAS, the existing policies emphasize the importance of treating post-tenure review as a process that emphasizes faculty development, and promotes faculty improvement, and that stresses the importance of peer review in this process; and

 

WHEREAS, the Faculty Assembly spent considerable time and effort during spring 2007 to provide recommendations that were incorporated into a revised version of the University’s Guidelines on Post-Tenure review that was submitted to the Board of Governors’ personnel committee for adoption in June 2007 (http://intranet.northcarolina.edu/content.php/docs/bog/bogdocs/2007-06/personnel/PUBLIC%20-%20Tab%205.pdf), and

 

WHEREAS, recent discussions about University Code reform have raised concerns among faculty regarding an apparent tendency to blur the functions of post-tenure review and to link post-tenure review practices to discipline and discharge of faculty members, and

 

WHEREAS, the Faculty Assembly wishes to reiterate its views regarding the appropriate focus of post-tenure review processes, and to confirm its understanding about the General Administration’s commitment to maintain an appropriate focus for the post-tenure review process:

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Faculty Assembly resolves that

 

1.   The University President should be advised that the Assembly believes that the primary purpose of the post-tenure review process should continue to be seen as a means for encouraging faculty development, and that this process should not be transformed into a personnel exercise or disciplinary process;

2.   All campuses should be asked to implement mentoring programs or other suitable strategies to assist faculty who are deemed to be deficient in connection with post-tenure review, in light of the faculty development function of the post-tenure review process;

3.   All campuses should be asked to provide faculty members with an opportunity to be involved in development of any proposed changes in promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review processes, and should inform affected faculty members of any such changes in a timely fashion; and

4.   The University President should be asked to submit to the Faculty Assembly any proposed changes in the University Code, related guidelines, or policies that affect faculty members, and to provide adequate time for review and comment by the Assembly before adoption of such provisions by General Administration or the Board of Governors.