Promotion & Tenure

University of North Dakota

School of Medicine and Health Sciences

Guidelines for Post-Tenure Review

Approved by SMHS Committee on Promotion and Tenure, 9-16-2025

Approved by SMHS Faculty Council, 9-23-2025

 

OVERVIEW

As required by SBHE Policy 605.1 and the UND Faculty Handbook and codified in the North Dakota Century Code (2025; 15-10-13.4 Academic Tenure-Policy-Evaluations), each tenured faculty member shall undergo a post-tenure review (PTR) within three years after receiving tenure, and every five years or more frequently thereafter. After a successful promotion to full professor, the PTR cycle resets, and the next PTR will occur at five years or more frequently thereafter.

These guidelines have been developed considering the general expectations the university has of all tenured faculty as outlined in the UND Faculty Handbook. This document serves as an amendment to the SMHS Guidelines on Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure. Throughout the PTR document, references to the SMHS Guidelines on Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure clarify or expand upon specific evaluative criteria.

PTR is a cumulative evaluation distinct from annual faculty performance evaluations. The purpose of PTR is to recognize ongoing faculty contributions and provide constructive feedback for professional development and continuous improvement. PTR incorporates insights from annual evaluations but does not supplant them for purposes of promotion or merit pay decisions. In years when a PTR is conducted, a separate annual faculty performance evaluation will be completed according to the SMHS Guidelines on Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure.

 

CRITERIA

In general, tenured faculty are expected to show evidence of continued commitment to teaching, research, and service. In accordance with the UND Faculty Handbook PTR policy, “unlike annual evaluations that typically focus on a single year, PTR cumulatively evaluates faculty productivity based on the percentage efforts in research, scholarly and/or creative activity, teaching, and service in annual faculty contracts.” Therefore, the relative importance of each area (teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service) for PTR is based on the faculty member’s contracts during the period under review.

Teaching, research, and service will be evaluated based on benchmarks of accomplishment defined in each department’s evaluation, promotion and tenure guidelines taking into consideration percentage effort allocations documented in the faculty member’s UND Position Description (i.e., Page 2) over the period of review. Tenured faculty will receive a separate rating on the scale (see below) for each area (teaching, scholarly and creative activity, and service), like the rating scale used for faculty annual performance evaluations.

Exceptional Performance: Designation used in extremely rare cases where the faculty member merits special recognition for unequivocally superior and exceptional performance (i.e., worthy of national, international, or professional award nominations).

Exceeds Expectations: Designation used to indicate that certain aspects of the faculty member’s performance substantially and frequently exceed that described in Page 2 and department criteria.

Meets Expectations: Designation used when the faculty member’s performance is of high quality, fulfills expectations, and periodically may exceed them as described in Page 2.

Requires Development: Designation used to indicate that certain aspects of the faculty member’s performance do not consistently meet expectations and require improvement. The narrative must address specific areas that need improvement, which will be incorporated into a performance improvement plan to address each area that requires improvement.

Unsatisfactory: Designation used in cases where work is below the basic requirement of Page 2 and/or department and college expectations for faculty in the same rank. The narrative must address specific areas that need improvement, which will be incorporated into a performance improvement plan to address each area that requires improvement.

As a cumulative review, PTR may identify patterns of lower performance or higher performance that the regular annual evaluation does not recognize. Meeting minimum standards on an annual basis is necessary but may not be sufficient to meet expectations in post-tenure review. In accordance with the SMHS Guidelines on Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure, performance expectations generally should match the effort that the faculty member expends in each area of responsibility as reflected in the faculty member’s Page 2, with the best performance expected in the area where the faculty member devotes most of his/her time. For PTR purposes, a tenured faculty member is considered to “Meet Expectations” for each area of responsibility when the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that their performance in each area meets the benchmarks for a rating of at least “High” in accordance with departmental guidelines for evaluation, promotion and tenure.

Administrative effort will not be evaluated as part of PTR but will be evaluated as part of the regular annual evaluation process.

For any tenured faculty member undergoing a PTR evaluation, the findings of fact, conclusions and decisions after the evaluation shall be based solely on the evidence in the dossier. If substantial chronic deficiencies are identified in the performance of a faculty member, the chair and faculty member shall together formulate a performance improvement plan that addresses the deficiencies.  The plan shall identify problem areas or weaknesses; state goals for addressing weaknesses; describe actions to be taken on the part of the faculty member to achieve goals; identify resources and/or allocations necessary to support the improvement plan; specify criteria for assessment; specify a timeline for achievements within the plan; describe the process for preparing progress reports, and outline possible courses of action in the event the performance improvement plan is not successfully completed.

INDIVIDUALS AND COMMITTEES INVOLVED IN THE EVALUATION

The Foundational Review in the PTR process is conducted by a departmental committee, which could be either the entire departmental committee on promotion and tenure or a subset of the committee; the composition and construction of the departmental committee conducting the PTR Foundational Review is to be determined by the departmental faculty. In accordance with the SMHS Guidelines on Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure for evaluations that involve tenure, the departmental committee conducting the PTR Foundational Review must consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members. If fewer than three tenured faculty members reside in a department, tenured faculty members will be recruited from other suitable departments. Outside faculty members must be approved by a majority vote of the departmental faculty. A faculty member undergoing PTR and/or being evaluated for promotion in the same academic year is ineligible to serve on the committee.

The faculty member’s department chair and the dean each conduct their own evaluations based on the faculty member’s dossier and the Foundational Review. The chair and the dean do not provide their own ratings but may comment in their narrative on their agreement or disagreement with the ratings provided in the Foundational Review.

The Culminating Committee consists of the faculty member’s department chair (i.e., administrative supervisor), the dean/designee (ranking administrator), and a SMHS tenured faculty member. The Culminating Committee faculty member is elected by the SMHS tenured faculty from among all eligible SMHS tenured faculty. A tenured faculty member is only eligible for election to the Culminating Committee in years when they are not scheduled to undergo PTR. The culminating committee ensures procedural integrity of the PTR process as well as evaluative cohesion and integration of all levels of review. The task of the culminating committee is to provide a summary of the previous levels of review and the committee’s own independent evaluation of the faculty member undergoing PTR. The committee may need to reconcile discrepancies or disagreements at the previous levels of review. If there are conflicting evaluations, the culminating committee determines final evaluation ratings and outcomes.

MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED

Each faculty member being evaluated for PTR is required to submit a dossier containing a current curriculum vitae and up to a three-page, written-narrative self-evaluation providing context for and detailing accomplishments in teaching, scholarly and creative activity and service during the period under review. The purpose of the written-narrative self-evaluation is to contextualize accomplishments, address challenges, and highlight key contributions during the review period. In addition to the materials submitted by the faculty member, the SMHS Office of Academic Affairs will administratively add to the dossier all the faculty member’s Annual Faculty Performance Evaluations and Page 2s from the period being evaluated. The faculty member must submit the required materials by the deadline established by the SMHS Office of Academic Affairs.

When the dossier is complete, the SMHS Office of Academic Affairs will make the dossier available to the departmental committee and establish the workflow by which the dossier will be reviewed.

PTR PROCESS AND TIMELINE

PTR for each tenured faculty member will follow the schedule established annually by the SMHS Office of Academic Affairs.

When the PTR dossier is complete and made available to the departmental committee, no further materials may be added. The Foundational Review (i.e., first review) will be conducted by the departmental committee, which will provide ratings according to the above-described scale and narrative providing evidence and rationale for the rating in each area of faculty responsibility.

After the departmental committee completes its review, the department chair completes the Department Chair Evaluation, which consists of narrative informed by the chair’s review of the dossier and the Foundational Review. The chair may concur with the findings of the Foundational Review or provide evidence and rationale for his/her own findings that may differ from the findings of the Foundational Review.

After the department chair completes his/her review, the dean completes the Dean Evaluation, which consists of narrative informed by the dean’s review of the dossier, the Foundational Review, and the chair’s narrative. The dean may concur with the findings of each of the previous reviews or provide evidence and rationale for his/her own findings that may differ from the findings of the Foundational Review and the chair.

 

After the dean completes his/her review, the culminating committee completes the Culminating Committee Evaluation, which consists of ratings according to the above-described scale and relevant narrative providing evidence and rationale for the rating in each area of faculty responsibility. The culminating committee may need to reconcile discrepancies or disagreements at the previous levels of review. The culminating committee determines final ratings and outcomes of the PTR evaluation.

 

At each stage of the review process, the faculty member is provided with the opportunity to review the evaluation and respond by submitting a separate narrative if they do not agree with any aspect of the review completed at the previous stage of the review process. In accordance with UND’s PTR policy, if the faculty member believes that the outcome of a PTR or the establishment of a performance improvement plan violates a specific SBHE or university policy, procedure, or practice, the faculty member may file a faculty grievance according to SBHE Policy 612 and section II.II of the UND Faculty Handbook. 

 

USE AND DISPOSITION OF PTR DOCUMENTS

 

The SMHS Office of Academic Affairs is the office of record for faculty personnel files, including all evaluations and, where appropriate, performance improvement plans. All reviews of faculty are confidential personnel matters. Neither issues arising nor contents of the evaluation file relating to a faculty review are to be discussed or disseminated outside of committee meetings. The dean will send a report to the Office of the Provost and VPAA annually by March 31 indicating the names of faculty for whom PTR was completed and the outcome of each review, including copies of performance improvement plans, if applicable. The Office of the Provost and VPAA will also receive a copy of each completed PTR faculty evaluation form through the established PTR workflow.