UTC utilizes the Faculty Evaluation and Development by Objectives (EDO) process for its annual evaluations of its faculty members. The EDO process is an annual performance- oriented system that is based on identifying objectives, establishing a realistic program for obtaining the objectives, and evaluating and rewarding performance in achieving the objectives. The scope of the EDO process is broad in that the format of the review process is consistent for all members of the faculty, is evidentiary- based, and represents common goals of all faculty members. The EDO process also recognizes unique disciplinary characteristics and expectations of the faculty members working within their academic discipline.

The evaluation of a faculty member’s performance is an essential component of the EDO process. The performance evaluation provides a formative and summative assessment of the faculty member’s performance so that the faculty member can maintain or improve subsequent performance; serves as a basis for promotion, tenure, salary, and other decisions; and provides accountability with regard to the quality of teaching, research and service to those concerned with the institution. Essential to the annual evaluation process and progress toward promotion and/or tenure is the linking of the expectations for annual performance to the long-term efforts toward promotion and/or tenure. Departmental bylaws should clearly describe the association of the annual EDO process with faculty progression toward promotion and/or tenure.

3.4.1. Areas of Evaluation

The evaluation of the performance of the faculty member focuses on the following three (3) areas of professional responsibility:

• teaching and advising;^[1]
• research, scholarship, and creative activities; and
• professional service to the University, profession, and community.

Among these obligations, teaching and advising (as appropriate) are of highest importance at UTC. It is recognized, however, that research, and scholarly and creative achievement contribute significantly to good teaching and to the advancement of knowledge. It follows, then, that faculty members will be expected to be actively involved in research, scholarship or creative activity as well. The fundamental purpose of the institution is to serve the people of the community, state, and region, and it is expected that faculty members will contribute to the mission of UTC.

While the individual faculty member is expected to participate in each of the three areas, annual achievement will vary in accordance with the objectives established in conference with the department head. Lesser participation in one area should be counterbalanced by greater participation in others.

The mechanics for the EDO as they apply to tenure-track and tenured faculty members do not differ. However, the EDO process for tenure-track faculty members can and does have bearing on reappointment and tenure decisions. In turn, the EDO process for tenured faculty members can and does have bearing on promotion decisions, and is linked directly to the Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (EPPR) process.^[2] It is the responsibility of the department head to ensure that the EDO process takes into account the distinction between tenure-track and tenured faculty members as follows:

• Tenure-Track Faculty Members: The EDO process should focus on faculty development and mentorship, and should help to determine whether the faculty member is making adequate progress towards receiving tenure.
• Tenured Faculty Members: The EDO process should focus on innovation and long- term goal setting and should ensure that the faculty member continues to meet the expectations of a tenured member of the faculty at such rank as determined by departmental by-laws.

3.4.2. EDO Process Calendar

The schedule of timelines for the annual the EDO review process is available on the UTC Academic Affairs website here. Each tenured and tenure-track faculty member must be evaluated annually in accordance with Board policies.

3.4.3. Evaluation and Development by Objectives

An effective EDO process is one in which a faculty member’s objectives are clear and in which discussion occurs on an ongoing basis between the faculty member and the department head regarding the faculty member’s performance and progress toward achieving the faculty member’s objectives.

1. EDO Objectives

Within the context of the institutional goals and long-range plans of UTC, individual faculty members propose objectives in writing on the Individual Objectives Sheet Form, which they submit to their department heads for review, discussion, and approval. Since the objectives of the faculty are fundamental components of the EDO process, it is important that they be carefully prepared. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to clearly articulate in writing specific objectives and to demonstrate how the objectives relate to his or her professional development and responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the department head to provide an unambiguous review of the merit and quality of the faculty member’s objectives within the context of the disciplinary standards for the profession and the expectations of the faculty member specified in the faculty member’s letter of appointment. The following guidelines should be consulted during the stage of the EDO process for formulating the faculty member’s objectives:

• The objectives must reflect the department, college, and University missions.
• The objectives should contribute to the faculty member’s development as an effective faculty member.
• The objectives should be realistic and they should identify needed resources. Although a good objective will be challenging, it should also be attainable within the capabilities and resources of the faculty member and the University. Objectives should reflect the resources available to the faculty member.
• Objectives should specify an action to be taken or a task to be accomplished. At the time of evaluation, it should be clear whether or not a particular objective has been achieved.
• Objectives should be described in such a way that their completion may be objectively evaluated in a manner keeping with disciplinary standards. Not all objectives can or even should be quantified; but for those objectives that so lend themselves, the objectives should be stated in a manner so that the result is specific and subject to quantitative measures. When an objective aims for a qualitative result, understanding should be reached between the faculty member and the department head beforehand as to how and by what standards the outcome is to be judged.
• Once formulated, objectives should be set forth in writing in a completed Individual Objectives Sheet for the faculty member.

2. Review and Modifications of EDO Objectives

The faculty member and the department head will review the faculty member’s objectives at the time of the faculty member’s EDO review. If, after a faculty member’s objectives have been established, the faculty member proposes to change his or her objectives before the next EDO review is conducted, the faculty member must immediately consult with and obtain the approval of his or her department head regarding the proposed changes.

3.4.4. Performance Ratings

Each tenured and tenure-track faculty member must be evaluated annually in accordance with Board policy. Performance ratings for annual reviews shall be as follows, and college and department bylaws must clarify the means and metric for each department head to employ in conducting these reviews:

• Exceeds Expectations for Rank—eligible for significant merit pay or performance- based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations;
• Meets Expectations for Rank—eligible for minimum merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment that is consistent with campus, college, and department fiscal situations;
• Needs Improvement for Rank—not eligible for merit pay or performance-based salary adjustment and, if tenured, required to implement an Annual Review Improvement Plan (see Section 3.4.6.3.(1) below).^[3] If tenure-track, required to implement an Annual Review Improvement Plan unless the faculty member receives a notice of non-renewal of his or her reappointment as provided under Section 3.7.4. below; and
• Unsatisfactory for Rank—not eligible for any salary adjustment, and, if tenured, requires an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (see Section 3.4.6.4.(1) below).^[4] If tenure-track, required to implement an Annual Review Improvement Plan unless the faculty member receives a notice of non-renewal of his or her reappointment as provided under Section 3.7.4. below.

3.4.5. Performance Standards

Each college and academic department will establish the standards for evaluating performance of their faculty members in each of the three areas of professional responsibility: teaching, research, and service. The performance standards will be utilized in determining the assignment of performance ratings to faculty members for their annual reviews.

College and departmental performance standards must be approved by the dean and the Provost and should be kept on file in the office of the dean of the college. The performance standards must be included in the college and departmental bylaws. Any proposed changes in college or departmental performance standards must be approved by the dean and Provost. It is the role of the dean to encourage reasonably comparable levels of standards for the differing units within each college or school. It is the role of the Provost to encourage reasonably comparable standards for the differing colleges and schools at UTC.

Performance evaluations must be based on the published performance standards as stated in college and departmental bylaws. In applying the performance standards, the department head is charged with fairly and equitably identifying qualitative differences in performance of the academic department’s faculty members.

3.4.6. Determination of Performance Ratings and Process

In the three areas of responsibility (teaching, research, and service), the department head will evaluate the faculty member’s routine responsibilities established by the academic department, those defined by Board policy,^[5] and those identified in the faculty member’s Individual Objectives Sheet for the period being evaluated. During the course of the year, a faculty member may undertake teaching, research, or professional service activities in addition to those listed in the faculty member’s Individual Objectives Sheet and report such activities for consideration in the EDO evaluation process. The department head shall not utilize quotas or forced distributions of ratings in the determination of annual performance ratings of faculty members within the academic department.

For the faculty member’s performance evaluation, the department head will report on the Individual Evaluation Form: (1) brief narrative evaluations of the faculty member’s performance in each of the three areas of responsibility; and (2) a recommended composite rating of the faculty member’s overall performance.

The department head will provide the completed Individual Evaluation Form to the faculty member. The faculty member must sign the completed Individual Evaluation Form to indicate that the faculty member has read and understood the department head’s evaluation. The faculty member’s signature does not indicate agreement with the department head’s evaluation. Subject to the provisions under Sections 3.4.6.1.-3.4.6.4. below, the department head will send a copy of the faculty member’s evaluation and other EDO documentation to the dean, and the dean will send to the Provost for review and approval/disapproval copies of the evaluations of all faculty members within the dean’s college or a list of the names of the faculty members and their corresponding performance ratings.

1. Rating of Meets Expectations for Rank

If a faculty member disagrees with the department head’s recommendation of a “Meets Expectations for Rank” rating, the faculty member must, within seven (7) days of signing the Individual Evaluation Form, submit a written response to the department head setting forth the basis for the disagreement. The department head’s evaluation and the faculty member’s written response will be forwarded to the dean along with the faculty member’s EDO documentation, all of which will become a part of the faculty member’s official EDO record. The dean will review the matter and forward to the Provost a written recommendation and a copy of the faculty member’s EDO documentation. The Provost will review the matter and provide written notice of his or her decision to the faculty member, department head, and dean.

2. Recommendation for Exceeds Expectations for Rank

In cases where the department head recommends an annual performance rating of “Exceeds Expectations for Rank,” the department head will forward the recommendation to the dean by attaching the Exceeds Expectations for Rank Recommendation Form to the faculty member’s Individual Evaluation Form. If the dean agrees with the department head’s recommendation, the dean will forward his or her recommendation for “Exceeds Expectations for Rank” to the Provost and provide a copy of the recommendation to the department head. The Provost will make his or her recommendation to the Chancellor for final award.

3. Rating of Needs Improvement for Rank

If a faculty member disagrees with the department head’s recommendation of a “Needs Improvement for Rank” rating, the faculty member must, within seven (7) days of signing the Individual Evaluation Form, submit a written response to the department head setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Within three (3) days of receipt of the faculty member’s response, the department head must provide to the departmental Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion Committee (RTP Committee)^[6] written notice of the basis and rationale for the faculty member’s rating and a copy of the faculty member’s written response. Within seven (7) days of receipt of the department’s head notice, the departmental RTP Committee will provide a written evaluation of the faculty member’s record and a performance rating recommendation. The departmental RTP Committee shall include in its evaluation the number of votes for and against the recommended performance rating.

The department head’s evaluation, the faculty member’s written response, and the departmental RTP Committee’s recommendation will be forwarded by the department head to the dean along with the faculty member’s EDO documentation, all of which will become a part of the faculty member’s official EDO record. The dean will review the matter and forward to the Provost a written recommendation and a copy of the faculty member’s EDO documentation. The Provost will review the matter and provide written notice of his or her decision to the faculty member, departmental RTP Committee members, department head, and dean.

(1) Annual Review Improvement Plan

Except as otherwise provided in this Section 3.4.6.3.(1) or in Section 3.4.6.4.(1) below, within thirty (30) calendar days of the Provost’s decision to approve a “Needs Improvement for Rank” rating for a faculty member, the faculty member must collaborate with the department head on an Annual Review Improvement Plan to be reviewed by the department head and recommended by him or her to the dean for review and approval/denial. The next year’s annual review must include a progress report that clearly describes improvements in any area(s) for which improvement was required. The Annual Review Improvement Plan process is inapplicable if the faculty member’s performance rating has triggered Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review.^[7] An Annual Review Improvement Plan is not required for a tenure-track faculty member with an overall performance rating of “Needs Improvement for Rank” who receives a notice of non- renewal of his or her appointment for the following year.

4. Rating of Unsatisfactory for Rank

If a faculty member disagrees with the department head’s recommendation of an “Unsatisfactory for Rank” rating, the faculty member must, within seven (7) days of signing the Individual Evaluation Form, submit a written response to the department head setting forth the basis for the disagreement. Within three (3) days of receipt of the faculty member’s response, the department head must provide to the departmental RTP Committee written notice of the basis and rationale for the faculty member’s rating and a copy of the faculty member’s written response. Within seven (7) days of receipt of the department’s head notice, the departmental RTP Committee will provide a written evaluation of the faculty member’s record and a performance rating recommendation. The departmental RTP Committee shall include in its evaluation the number of votes for and against the recommended performance rating.

The department head’s evaluation, the faculty member’s written response, and the departmental RTP Committee’s recommendation will be forwarded by the department head to the dean along with the faculty member’s EDO documentation, all of which will become a part of the faculty member’s official EDO record. The dean will review the matter and forward to the Provost a written recommendation and a copy of the faculty member’s EDO documentation. The Provost will review the matter and provide written notice of his or her decision to the faculty member, departmental RTP Committee members, department head, and dean.

(1) Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review

A tenured faculty member who receives an annual performance rating of “Unsatisfactory for Rank” will be subject to an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (EPPR). An EPPR is an expanded and in-depth performance review conducted by a committee of tenured peers and administered by the Provost.

An EPPR must be initiated when the Provost determines that a faculty member has:

• Requested an EPPR, after at least four annual performance review cycles since the last enhanced review (such as a previous EPPR or a review in connection with tenure or promotion);
• Received one overall annual performance rating of “Unsatisfactory for Rank”; or
• Received two overall annual performance ratings of “Needs Improvement for Rank” during any four consecutive annual performance review cycles.^[8]

The procedures for conducting an EPPR are detailed in Appendix E of UT Policy BT0006.

(2) Annual Review Improvement Plan

Except as otherwise provided in this Section 3.4.6.4.(2), within thirty (30) calendar days of the Provost’s decision to approve an “Unsatisfactory for Rank” rating for a tenure-track faculty member, the tenure-track faculty member must collaborate with the department head on an Annual Review Improvement Plan to be reviewed by the department head and recommended by him or her to the dean for review and approval/denial. The next year’s annual review must include a progress report that clearly describes improvements in any area(s) for which improvement was required. However, an Annual Review Improvement Plan is not required for a tenure-track faculty member with an overall performance rating of “Unsatisfactory for Rank” who receives a notice of non-renewal of his or her appointment for the following year.

3.4.7. Appeal of Annual Performance Rating

The Provost’s decision regarding a faculty member’s annual performance rating may be appealed pursuant to the appeal procedure under Section 5.3. of this Handbook, except that the decision of the Chancellor on appeal shall be final and not appealable to the President. An Enhanced Post- Tenure Review or the implementation of an Annual Review Improvement Plan will not be stayed pending the appeal of an annual performance rating.

3.4.8. Periodic Post-Tenure Performance Review (PPPR)

The academic freedom afforded to faculty by a grant of tenure is essential to the University’s principal mission of discovery and dissemination of truth through teaching, research, and service.

The Board has recognized and affirmed the importance of tenure in UT Policy BT0006. The Board has also recognized its fiduciary responsibility to students, parents, and all citizens of Tennessee to ensure that faculty members effectively serve the needs of students and the University throughout their careers. To balance its dedication to academic freedom with its responsibilities, UTC, with the approval of the President and the Board, has established the procedures under this Section 3.4.8. under which every tenured faculty member shall receive a comprehensive performance review no less often than every six years.

1. Post-Tenure Review Period

Except as otherwise provided in the procedures under this Section 3.4.8., each tenured faculty member must undergo some form of comprehensive performance review (“post-tenure review” or “PTR”) no less often than every six years. The PTR shall not substitute for the EDO process in the year a faculty member is scheduled for PTR.

The dean of each college shall develop, and submit to the Provost for approval, an initial plan for staggering post-tenure reviews to avoid excessive administrative burden at any given time. The initial staggering plan may be revised with the approval of the Provost if later developments require changes in order to avoid excessive administrative burden. The post- tenure review period begins at the granting of tenure, and, except as otherwise provided by the staggering plan, a faculty member’s PTR will occur no less often than every six years thereafter unless one of the following circumstances results in a different timetable:

1. Suspension of PTR Period: A faculty member’s PTR period is suspended during any year in which the faculty member is granted a leave of absence or a modified duties assignment.
2. Restarting of PTR Period Due to Alternative Comprehensive Review: A comprehensive review of a faculty member’s performance restarts the faculty member’s PTR period under the following circumstances:
   1. If a tenured faculty member undergoes a successful promotion review or a promotion is in progress during the year scheduled for the faculty member’s PTR, the promotion review fulfills the PTR requirement and the PTR period is modified to require a PTR six years after the promotion review. An unsuccessful promotion review does not count as an Alternative Comprehensive Review.
   2. If a tenured faculty member undergoes an Enhanced Post-Tenure Performance Review (EPPR) (generally triggered by annual performance review rating(s)) and is either rated as meeting expectations or successfully completes the terms of the EPPR improvement plan, the EPPR process fulfills the PTR requirement and the PTR cycle is modified to begin with the date of the EPPR committee’s report.
3. Start of the PTR Period Upon Conclusion of an Administrative Appointment: Full-time administrators and faculty members with a majority administrative appointment (more than 50%) are not subject to PTR; faculty members holding a less than majority administrative appointment (50% or less) are subject to PTR regarding their faculty duties based on expectations consistent with their faculty duty allocation. When a full-time or majority-time administrator leaves his or her administrative position to assume a tenured faculty position, the faculty member’s initial PTR shall occur within six years after leaving the administrative post.
4. Commitment to Retire: When a faculty member submits a letter of resignation with a termination date within the academic year during which a post-tenure review would have taken place, and provided the letter of resignation is accepted by the Provost, the post-tenure review shall be deemed unnecessary.
5. Good Cause: A faculty member’s scheduled PTR may be otherwise deferred or modified only for good cause approved by the Provost.

2. Annual Schedule for Post-Tenure Reviews

All post-tenure reviews will be conducted and completed during the Fall semester according to the following schedule:

• The Provost shall notify all faculty members subject to post-tenure review in a given academic year no later than April 1 of the preceding academic year.
• The dean of the faculty member’s college shall appoint all PTR Committees as set forth in Section 3.4.8.3. below no later than May 1 of the preceding academic year.
• Each PTR Committee shall convene and elect a chair and shall be provided with the materials required by Section 3.4.8.3. below no later than September 1.
• When external review is required as part of the post-tenure review by the PTR Committee in accordance with college bylaws or by the dean in accordance with college bylaws, or is requested by the faculty member for his or her post-tenure review, the PTR Committee shall solicit reviews from at least three (3) valid external reviewers no later than October 1.
• Each PTR Committee shall submit its report required under Section 3.4.8.6. below no later than December 15.

3. Appointment and Composition of Post-Tenure Review Committee

1. All post-tenure reviews must be conducted by college-level committees established for the sole purpose of post-tenure review. Each PTR Committee shall include a minimum of three (3) members, provided the number is odd. Deans of larger colleges may opt to appoint a larger committee. The committee is appointed by the dean of the faculty member’s college in the following manner:
   • Each department may nominate at least one (1) member, but no more than three (3) members of its tenured faculty, to serve on a college-level PTR Committee. The nominees should include no faculty member who is subject to post-tenure review in that cycle. The department nominee may hold the rank of Associate Professor only with prior approval of the dean and only in the event that no full Professor is eligible or available to serve.
   • From among the departmental nominees, the dean shall appoint faculty members to serve on a PTR Committee for any specific faculty member (or group of faculty members) undergoing review. The members of a PTR Committee shall be appointed so as to avoid any conflict of interest with any faculty member (or group of faculty members) undergoing review.
   • For the purpose of this process, a conflict of interest shall be defined as any professional or personal consideration between a PTR Committee member and a faculty member undergoing post-tenure review which may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, the independence of the former’s judgment during review of the latter.
2. The composition of the PTR Committee must meet the following requirements:
   • Each PTR Committee member must be a tenured full-time faculty member who is at the same or higher academic rank (except as provided under Section 3.4.8.3.(1) above), and whose locus of tenure is at the same campus as the faculty member being reviewed.
   • One, and only one, PTR Committee member must hold an appointment in the same department as the faculty member being reviewed, unless there is no such faculty member eligible to serve.

College bylaws may further define the size and membership of a PTR Committee, accounting for the characteristics of the departments and faculties which constitute the college itself.

The Provost, working with the University of Tennessee Office of Academic Affairs and Student Success, will provide instructions, guidelines, and best practices to members of PTR Committees.

Each PTR Committee shall convene and elect a chair. The chair shall solicit and collect all required materials from each faculty member under review and the department head of each faculty member under review. The chair shall subsequently ensure that the committee meets in person for a thorough review of those materials.

4. Materials to be Reviewed by Post-Tenure Review Committee

The PTR Committee must review:

1. a completed EDO (including the department head’s evaluation and rating of the faculty member’s performance, and student and any peer evaluation of teaching) for each year since the last review;
2. EDO goals for the current review period;
3. the faculty member’s current Curriculum Vitae;
4. a narrative, not to exceed two pages, prepared by the faculty member describing the faculty member’s milestone achievements and accomplishments since the last review as well as goals for the next post-tenure review period; and
5. if there has been a previous PTR, a copy of the narrative submitted as a part of the faculty member’s previous PTR.

Items (1) – (2) above should be supplied by the faculty member’s department head. Items (3) – (5) above should be supplied by the faculty member.

The PTR Committee may also review:

6. external reviews, when external reviews are deemed necessary by the PTR Committee in accordance with college bylaws or when external reviews are deemed necessary by the dean of the faculty member’s college in accordance with college bylaws. In the event that an external review is not deemed necessary by the PTR Committee or dean, external reviews may be requested by the faculty member undergoing post-tenure review.

When an external review is deemed necessary, or is requested, for a faculty member’s post-tenure review, the materials to be reviewed for that faculty member (i.e., the materials listed under (1) – (5) above), will be sent to no fewer than three external reviewers. At least two external reviewers must provide written reviews.

The selection of the external reviewers for a faculty member is a collaboration between that faculty member and the PTR Committee conducting the review. The faculty member shall submit to the PTR Committee two lists: one list of no fewer than five names of valid reviewers, and a second list of names of individuals who must be excluded from the external review. Relying on its own counsel and expertise, the PTR Committee will create its own list of no fewer than five valid reviewers.

A valid reviewer is a tenured faculty member at a comparable institution of higher education holding the rank of full Professor and a terminal degree in the same discipline, or sufficiently- related discipline, as the faculty member undergoing post-tenure review. Preference should be given to valid reviewers from institutional peers of UTC.

From these two lists, the PTR Committee shall select exactly one name of a valid reviewer from the faculty member’s list and two names of valid reviewers from its own list. From this panel of three reviewers, the PTR Committee shall solicit external reviews using a form letter provided by the Provost for this purpose. Each reviewer shall receive the same packet of materials (i.e., the materials listed under (1) – (5) as above), along with clear instructions on timely return of a review to the PTR Committee. Should a reviewer decline to review a candidate for post-tenure review, the PTR Committee may return to the two lists of valid reviewers and select another valid reviewer from whom to solicit a review.

At least two valid external reviewers must supply reviews to the PTR Committee reviewing a candidate for post-tenure review. In the event that two reviews from valid external reviewers cannot be secured, the chair of a PTR Committee may appeal to the Provost for a waiver of this requirement.

The reviews of external reviewers are advisory to the PTR Committee. In its conclusions and report, the PTR Committee should highlight relevant observations made by external reviewers, and describe the role that those observations played in the PTR Committee’s conclusions and report.

5. Criteria for Post-Tenure Review

The post-tenure review process should ensure the faculty member has demonstrated continued professional growth and productivity in the areas of teaching, research (including published scholarship and creative achievement), service, and/or clinical care pertinent to his or her faculty responsibilities. The criteria for assessing the faculty member’s performance must be consistent with established expectations of the department, college, and UTC and provide sufficient flexibility to consider changes in academic responsibilities and/or expectations. The expectations for faculty performance may differ by college, department, and even among sub-disciplines within a department or program. Those expectations may be commonly-held standards in the discipline or sub-discipline. Those expectations may be stated explicitly in the faculty member’s own past annual performance reviews, work assignments, goals or other planning tools (however identified), as well as department or college bylaws, this Handbook (including without limitation this Section 3.4.8.), and in other generally-applicable policies and procedures (for example, fiscal, human resources, safety, research, or information technology policies and procedures).

6. PTR Committee’s Conclusions and Report

The PTR Committee is charged to review the faculty member’s performance during the review period and to conclude whether the faculty member’s performance satisfies the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank. All conclusions and recommendations shall be adopted upon the vote of a simple majority of the PTR Committee. No member of the PTR Committee may abstain or recuse themselves from voting. Based on the judgment of its members, the PTR Committee must conclude either:

• That the faculty member’s performance satisfies the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank; or
• That the faculty member’s performance does not satisfy the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and academic rank.

The committee must report its conclusions and recommendations in writing using a standard format prepared by the Provost, including (a) an enumeration of the vote, (b) the supporting reasons for its conclusion, (c) a dissenting explanation for any conclusion that is not adopted unanimously, (d) an identification of any incongruences observed between the faculty member’s performance and his or her annual evaluations, (e) a statement of any additional concerns identified or actions recommended, and (f) if applicable, an identification of areas of extraordinary contribution and/or performance.

The PTR Committee shall send its detailed report to the dean of the faculty member’s college. The dean shall make a written recommendation to accept or reject the PTR Committee’s determination and which shall include the dean’s justification for their recommendation. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the PTR Committee report, the dean shall provide the report along with the dean’s recommendation to the faculty member, department head, and Provost.

Upon receipt of the PTR Committee report and the dean’s written recommendation, the faculty member and department head shall have thirty (30) days to provide the Provost their independent written responses to the PTR Committee report and the dean’s recommendation.

After receipt of the written responses of the faculty member and/or department head, or confirmation that no such response(s) will be provided, the Provost shall review the PTR Committee report, the dean’s written recommendation, and any written responses provided by the faculty member and/or department head, before making a final decision on the faculty member’s performance during the review period. The Provost shall provide notice of the Provost’s final decision to the faculty member, department head, and dean in writing.

The PTR Committee report, the dean’s written recommendation, any written response(s) from the faculty member and/or department head, and the Provost’s final decision letter shall be maintained in UTC Faculty Records. At the conclusion of each academic year, a summary of all PTR decisions made at UTC that academic year will be compiled and submitted electronically to the University of Tennessee Office of Academic Affairs and Student Success.

7. Appeal

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Provost’s final decision letter, the faculty member may appeal any conclusion with which the faculty member disagrees. The procedure for appeal is described in Section 5.3. of this Handbook, except that a final decision by the Chancellor on the appeal shall be made within ninety (90) days of the faculty member’s appeal. The decision of the Chancellor on an appeal shall be final and not be appealable to the President. If the Chancellor’s decision on an appeal does not concur with the PTR Committee’s recommendation, with the dean’s written recommendation, or with the Provost’s decision, then the Chancellor shall provide supporting reasons for any such non-concurrence in the appeal decision letter.

8. Further Actions

If the PTR Committee concludes that the faculty member’s performance has not satisfied the expectations for the faculty member’s discipline and rank, a PTR improvement plan must be developed using the same procedures used for the development of an EPPR improvement plan as detailed in Appendix E to UT Policy BT0006.

If the Provost concludes that deficiencies exist in the departmental annual performance review process (including failure of department heads to conduct rigorous annual performance reviews) or other incongruences are observed between the PTR performance review and rankings assigned through the annual performance review process, the Provost must develop a process for addressing the issues.

9. Annual Report to the Board

The Provost shall prepare an annual assessment report of campus post-tenure review processes, procedures and outcomes for submission by the Chancellor to the Board, through the President, no later than June 1 of each year. The report shall include a description of any deficiencies identified in departmental annual performance review processes and the plan for addressing the issues.