Scope

IU Indianapolis faculty and librarians represent its most important resource. The development and maintenance of every faculty member or librarian's professional expertise must be among the highest priorities of the institution. An overwhelming majority of faculty and librarians are professionally competent, productive, and contribute to fulfilling the mission of IU Indianapolis. Thus, Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement is designed to focus on two small groups of faculty and librarians - those who seek a change in career direction or emphasis and those who are failing to meet minimum levels of performance or productivity. Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement provides a structure for the preparation and implementation of faculty/librarian development plans to meet the needs of these two groups of individuals.

Back to top

Policy Statement

Faculty members and librarians have the responsibility to optimize and deploy their talents and expertise in a way that furthers the mission of the university, the school, and the department, as well as their own careers. Faculty and librarians must ensure that they demonstrate professional competence and that, at the least, a minimally satisfactory contribution is consistently made in all areas of faculty or librarian performance. Tenure requires mutual responsibilities and when faculty and librarians accept tenure, they also accept the obligation to grow and develop professionally, to keep current in their disciplines, and to meet the evolving needs of the university. Most faculty members and librarians meet and most exceed this standard. Prior to the tenure decision, the burden is on the faculty member/librarian to prove that tenure should be granted. However, once tenure has been earned, the burden shifts to the institution to show why the faculty member or librarian should no longer have tenure.

The university has the reciprocal responsibility to provide faculty members and librarians with the environment and resources needed for them to be as productive as possible, particularly providing strong protection for academic freedom. This includes not only meaningful faculty/librarian development programs and opportunities, but also the structure and administrative support so that faculty and librarian efforts can be seamlessly translated into achievement. In addition, administrators must be willing and able to make difficult decisions when individual faculty or librarian performance remains below minimally satisfactory levels.

Back to top

Reason for Policy

In preparing this document, a subcommittee of the IU Indianapolis Faculty Affairs Committee studied post-tenure review plans from many other institutions. Based on this study and from discussion with members of the faculty, a draft document was prepared by the subcommittee for consideration by the full committee. In consultation with William Plater, then the Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculties, the final form of the document was approved by the IU Indianapolis Faculty Affairs Committee and forwarded to the IU Indianapolis Faculty Council. Since that time, input has been gathered through a variety of forums. The subcommittee revised the document using this input, as well as advice from the IU Indianapolis Library Faculty, and the policy has been approved with its current language by the IU Indianapolis Faculty Affairs Committee.

The proposed plan is a cost-effective way of addressing the issue of the unsatisfactory performance by faculty and librarians, as well as a logical step in assisting faculty and librarians who seek a change in career direction or emphasis. However, any attempts to deal with these two groups of faculty members or librarians will fail without an adequately planned and funded faculty/librarian development program that provides both the direction-changer and the under-performer with the opportunity for new challenges through a structured faculty development plan.

Although there are many high-quality faculty/librarian development offerings on campus, there have not been comprehensive mechanisms to assist faculty or librarians who request a change in career direction or a new emphasis in or balance between teaching, research, or service, in the case of faculty, or performance, professional development, and service, in the case of librarians. Similarly, little has been done to identify and revitalize the careers of faculty and librarians whose performance has been unsatisfactory or whose efforts do not translate into adequate contributions to the mission of the department, school, or university. There must be a way to link these individuals to the faculty/librarian development process. Because of the diverse needs of faculty and librarians, basic foundational programs may be required, as well as programs which are innovative and at the cutting edge of educational theory and practice. In addition, there must be coordination between faculty/librarian development at the school level and the campus level. Some subject areas can only be addressed within the context of a school or department, while others require the scope and perspective of a campus or university-wide program. Continuous learning is expected of all faculty and librarians, but this can only happen when there are good programs and support at all of these levels.

Back to top

Procedures

Guiding Principles

• Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement must be clearly aimed at performance enhancement rather than designed as a punishment for performance inadequacies. The ultimate goal is to revitalize faculty members and librarians without jeopardizing academic freedom. The program should include an opportunity for faculty members or librarians to pursue new directions throughout their careers without penalty. Intermediate sanctions prior to dismissal, which have been developed at the school level with faculty input, should be sought only after all practical attempts at performance enhancement have been exhausted.
• Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement must recognize the diverse cultures of faculty and librarians, including the potential differences in those who are more recently hired from those who have been on the faculty or in a library for many years, those from teaching-oriented and research-oriented schools and programs, and the differences in mission of the various schools or libraries.
• Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement is not for purposes of programmatic change.
• For faculty, the review process should take into consideration all facets of faculty performance, including the distribution of effort among teaching, research, and service, while recognizing that a particular faculty member's contributions may be weighted more heavily towards one area or may shift, depending on the mission and needs of the department or school. For librarians, the review process should take into consideration all facets of librarian activities, including the distribution of effort between performance, professional development, and service, while recognizing that a particular librarian's contributions may be weighted more heavily towards one area or may shift, depending on the mission and needs of the department, school, or library.
• There should be a formal linkage between faculty/librarian review and faculty/ librarian development. Sufficient resources must be available for faculty development awards and assistance.
• The faculty/librarian development program must be coordinated with the review process so that programs specific to the needs of faculty or librarians who wish to enhance performance are offered and are coordinated with faculty/librarian development programs already in place. There must be ongoing analysis of current faculty/librarian development strategies and a determination of whether they are adequate to meet the needs of all faculty, but particularly those who are subject to a faculty/librarian development plan under Plan B.
• Since administrators play an active role in faculty or librarian success, deans, program directors, library directors, and department chairs should be provided with training programs on leadership and personnel management. These individuals are responsible for providing an environment and formulating policies which promote faculty/librarian success. They must be able and willing to make the difficult decisions in the rare instances where corrective measures are necessary. Review of administrators' abilities in leadership and personnel management should be incorporated into the regular administrative review process.
• The program should incorporate as much of the review mechanisms already in place to minimize the creation of duplicate processes. Peer review must be part of the process. For example, the existing process for annual reviews and/or reviews for salary recommendations could be used as an initiating mechanism to identify those faculty members or librarians who require an enhancement plan. The initiating mechanism should be designed to identify only those faculty members or librarians who, through annual reviews or feedback from annual reports, have been informed of persistent substandard performance over time (e.g., two consecutive annual reviews), rather than those with a single year of reduced productivity or lack of effectiveness.
• The process must carefully balance the potential good from the program with the cost of the program, particularly since the percentage of faculty members and librarians needing an enhancement program is expected to be quite small. Continuous learning and development, however, are expected of all faculty members and librarians. There must be adequate opportunities and resources to support this commitment.
• Schools shall be required to determine what constitutes "unsatisfactory performance." This definition and mechanism for measuring who has "unsatisfactory performance" shall be determined with faculty input and with full written notice to faculty upon the implementation of Faculty/Librarian Review and Enhancement in the school. For librarians, the definitions and mechanisms for measuring shall be determined by IU Indianapolis Library Faculty documents, with written policies available to all librarians. However, the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" must include the concept of lack of effort, such that there is no evidence that the individual is trying to improve, rather than merely lack of results, which must take into account mitigating circumstances, such as a competitive research environment. Schools shall provide a copy of the policies to the Office of Academic Affairs.
• The first implementation of the review and enhancement process in a school should take place after a sufficient time for schools and libraries to develop criteria and guidelines, but not later than one year after the adoption of this policy by the IU Indianapolis Faculty Council.
• Due process must be assured.
• A corollary of this policy is a fair and equitable retirement system which provides faculty members and librarians with the opportunity to retire from their positions in a dignified manner.

Plan A: Voluntary. The Faculty Member or Librarian Requests the Preparation of a Faculty/Librarian Development Plan

This process is strictly voluntary for the purpose of assisting the faculty member or librarian in evaluating their career and in the preparation a faculty/librarian development plan. For faculty, the focus of the review is on the faculty member accomplishments, research agenda, teaching efforts, and service contributions, relating these to the stated criteria for performance developed by the school, the school and/or department's mission, or the faculty member's desire for a change in career focus. For librarians, the focus of the review is on the librarian's accomplishments, professional development agenda, and service contributions, relating these to the stated criteria for performance developed by the school, the school and/or library's mission, or the librarian's desire for a change in career focus.

No documents or results of this voluntary review may be used in any other university evaluation process, except by explicit consent of the faculty member or librarian.

1. Tenured faculty member or librarian requests assistance in the design of a faculty/librarian development plan. The request will contain a statement of the rationale for the request, including why a plan is needed and how the plan fits within the mission and goals of the school, the department, and/or the library. The individual to whom the request is submitted is identified in school-specific or IU Indianapolis Library Faculty guidelines.
2. For faculty, the review will be conducted by an elected faculty review committee composed of a minimum of three tenured faculty members and excludes administrators at the level of department chair and above. Details of the election process are provided in school-specific guidelines. The faculty member has the right to reject a committee member in the case of a perceived conflict of interest. For librarians, the review will be conducted by an appropriate elected body, as specified in IU Indianapolis Library Faculty documents.
3. The department chair, or in the case of schools without department chairs, the dean, the library director, or their designee, informs the faculty member or librarian of the nature and procedures of the review.
4. The faculty member or librarian and the department chair, or equivalent, prepare a review dossier, which includes the following at a minimum:
   
   For Faculty:
   * a current vita
   * a statement on teaching or a teaching portfolio
   * a statement on current research or creative work
   * a statement on current service
   
   For Librarians:
   * a current vita
   * a statement on performance
   * a statement on current professional development activities
   * a statement on current service
   
   
5. The department chair or equivalent:
   
   * may add any materials relevant to the review, including prior evaluations and other documents
   * must provide the faculty member or librarian with a copy of teach item added
   
   
6. The faculty member or librarian may add materials to the dossier at any time during the review process.
7. Based on a review of the request for preparation of a faculty/librarian development plan and the dossier, the review committee shall decide whether the request is reasonable, particularly if the goals of the faculty member or librarian are inconsistent with the mission of the school, department, and/or library.
8. The review committee, in cooperation with the faculty member or librarian, will prepare a faculty/librarian development plan. This plan will provide specific guidance and advice to help the faculty member or librarian more effectively achieve their revised career goals.

The plan should:

• • • • • identify specific strengths and weaknesses related to the faculty member or librarian's future goals and the extent to which these goals fit within the mission of the school, department, or library
        • define specific activities and programs that could help the faculty or librarian achieve these goals
        • set appropriate timelines for the completion of these activities
        • indicate appropriate benchmarks which the faculty member or librarian could use to monitor their progress
        • identify the source of any funding or institutional commitments, such as assigned time or new research equipment, based on discussions with the dean or library director
        9. In the development of the plan, the review committee shall consider whether the resources required to achieve the faculty member or librarian's goals are reasonable or an appropriate long-term investment.
        10. The faculty/librarian development plan shall be signed by the faculty member or librarian, the dean, library director, or designee, and the department chair or equivalent.
        11. Since participation in the review process and preparation of a faculty/librarian development plan is voluntary, the faculty member or librarian may stop the process at any time, up until the point that the plan is agreed to and signed.

    Plan B. Involuntary. A Faculty Member or Librarian is Identified as Needing a Review and the Preparation of a Faculty/Librarian Development Plan. 

    For faculty, the purpose of the review is to identify a faculty member's unsatisfactory performance, to re-affirm or change the division of efforts between teaching, research, and service, to structure a development plan to remedy any deficiencies, and to monitor the progress towards achievement of the plan. For librarians, the purpose of the review is to identify a librarian's unsatisfactory performance, to re-affirm or change the division of efforts between performance, professional development, and service, to structure a development plan to remedy any deficiencies, and to monitor the progress towards achievement of the plan.

    The faculty/librarian development plan is an agreement indicating how specific deficiencies in a faculty member or librarian's performance shall be remedied. The generation of a plan is a collaborative effort among the faculty member or librarian, the review committee, and the dean or library director and should reflect the mutual aspirations and intentions of the faculty member or librarian, the department, and the school or library.

    • • 9. • • • • 1. The review process is initiated at the school level when at least two consecutive annual reviews indicate that a faculty member or librarian's performance is unsatisfactory, as defined by their school or library.
                   2. The dean or library director notifies the faculty member or librarian being selected for review and informs him/her about the nature and procedures of the review.
                   • For faculty, the dean may grant an exemption to a faculty member subject to review if there are extenuating circumstances, such as health problems, which contributed to unsatisfactory performance, or in the event of impending retirement.
                   • For librarians, the appropriate administrator may grant an exemption to a librarian subject to review if there are extenuating circumstances, such as health problems, which contributed to unsatisfactory performance, or in the event of impending retirement.

    3.For faculty, the review will be conducted by an elected faculty review committee composed of a minimum of three tenured faculty members and excludes administrators at the level of department chair and above. Details of the process to elect and replace committee members are provided in school-specific guidelines. The faculty member has the right to reject a committee member in the case of a perceived conflict of interest. For librarians, the review will be conducted by an appropriate elected body, as specified in IU Indianapolis Library Faculty documents.

    4.The review committee can terminate the process if it finds that there is no basis for the review.

    5.The findings of the review fall within three categories:

    • • 9. • • • • • Some strengths, no deficiencies. If the committee determines that the faculty member or librarian has met the minimum level of performance, as set by the school or library, the faculty member or librarian and dean or library director will be informed and the review process terminated.
                   • Some strengths, some deficiencies, but deficiencies are not substantial or chronic. If the committee identifies some deficiencies in the faculty member or librarian's performance as compared to the minimum level of performance set by the school or library, but these deficiencies are not judged to be substantial or chronic, the committee shall state its findings in writing, including the specific deficiencies identified. The findings shall be sent to the faculty member or librarian and the dean or library director. The faculty member or librarian should be offered the opportunity to have a faculty/librarian development plan through the review committee process described under Plan A: Voluntary.
                   • Substantial chronic deficiencies. If the committee determines that there are substantial chronic deficiencies in the faculty member or librarian's performance, as measured against the school or library's minimum level of performance, the committee shall state, in writing, the specific deficiencies identified. The findings shall be sent to the faculty member or librarian and their dean or library director.

    6.The faculty member or librarian and the committee shall work together to draw up a faculty/librarian development plan. The plan will provide specific guidance and advice to help the faculty member or librarian remedy the identified deficiencies. The plan should:

    • • 9. • • • • • identify specific strengths which should be enhanced
                   • identify the specific deficiencies to be addressed
                   • define specific goals or outcomes that are needed to remedy the deficiencies
                   • outline the specific activities and programs that should be completed to achieve these goals and outcomes
                   • set appropriate timelines for the completion of these activities
                   • indicate appropriate benchmarks to be used in monitoring progress
                   • indicate the criteria for annual progress reviews
                   • identify the source of any funding or institutional support, such as assigned time or new research equipment, based on discussions with the dean or library director

    7.The plan becomes final upon the signatures of the faculty member or librarian, the dean, library director or designee, and the department chair or equivalent. The signatures indicate that the formulation of a faculty/librarian development plan has been completed and is ready for implementation. It does not imply a faculty member of libratian's agreement with the findings. Rights of appeal are provided as described under #8. If a faculty member of librarian refuses to cooperate in the creation or implementation of a development plan, the dean may initiate a range of sanction (see item 12). If a faculty member of librarian initiates an appeal, sanctions shall be suspended pending completion of the appeal processes.

    • • 9. • • • • 8. The faculty member or librarian shall have the right of appeal as specified in the University Policies, the IU Indianapolis Faculty Guide, or the appropriate IU Indianapolis Library Faculty documents.
                   9. The faculty member or librarian and the review committee shall meet at least annually to review the faculty member or librarian's progress towards remedying the deficiencies. A progress report will be sent to the faculty member or library and the dean or library director.
                   10. If progress is not made based on the specified timelines and benchmarks which are part of the faculty/librarian development plan agreement, the dean or library director may employ a variety of sanctions which have been developed at the school level with faculty input, as defined within school-specific guidelines or in IU Indianapolis Library Faculty documents.
                   11. When the objectives of the plan have been met, or in any case, no later than three years after the start of the development plan, the review committee shall make a final report to the faculty member or librarian and the dean or library director.
                   12. Failure to successfully complete or demonstrate progress towards completion of the faculty/librarian development plan may result in significant sanctions for the faculty member or librarian, including initiation of dismissal proceedings based on alleged professional incompetence or alleged misconduct, as specified in the IU Indianapolis Dismissal Procedures for Tenured Faculty and Librarians.

    13.       The procedures for dismissing faculty for misconduct or incompetence are separate from these policies and may be invoked, when appropriate, at any time; dismissal policies supersede the Policy for Faculty and Librarian Review and Enhancement.

Back to top

History

Developed by the IUPUI Faculty Affairs Committee, June 6, 1997

Forwarded to IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee, June 26, 1997

Revisions: April 10 and April 21, 1998

Recommended for Approval by the Executive Committee, April 23, 1998

Approved at the IUPUI Faculty Council Meeting, May 7, 1998

Accepted by IUPUI Chancellor, July 1, 1998

Revisions Approved at the IUPUI Faculty Council Meeting, May 6, 1999

Revisions Approved at the IUPUI Faculty Council Meeting, December 2, 1999

Edited for title and handbook names changes, April 14, 2015

Edited pronouns (he/she) for inclusivity (their), 7/1/20

Back to top