Annual and Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity Reviews (new title)

Scope

This policy applies to all academic appointees, subject to distinctions established in Indiana Code (IC) 21‑39.5‑2‑2 and IC 21‑38‑3.5 and as described below. 

A foundational principle of Indiana University is its enduring partnership across its units, including faculty and librarians, to collectively advance the institution's mission. The establishment, revision, and retirement of academic policies will occur with consultation and input from the University Faculty Council (UFC). 

Pursuant to IC 21-38-11, faculty governance organization actions are advisory only. 

This policy shall supersede all campus, school and college, program, department, center, institute, and unit policies on any core or regional campuses of Indiana University.

A post-tenure review process for tenured faculty members is required at Indiana University in compliance with IC 21-39.5-2-2 and IC 21-38-3.5. 

“Faculty member” means an employee of the university to whom one (1) or both of the following apply:   

1. The employee’s employment duties include teaching students of the university. 
2. The employee conducts research at the university.  

Back to top

Policy Statement

A public university’s reputation is built upon the productivity, conduct, and professional contributions of its academic appointees. Productivity is a measure of the academic appointee's performance across the domains of teaching and/or librarianship, research and/or creative activities, and service as defined by the appointee's discipline and evaluated by the standards of the appointee's unit. 

Accordingly, all academic appointees must complete an annual review. In addition, and in compliance with Indiana law, all tenured academic appointees must complete a post‑tenure productivity review every five years.  

Review procedures will, at minimum, preserve academic freedom, protect the appointee’s right to due process, and establish growth as a core objective. 

Review Cycle 

Annual Review 
Each academic appointee will complete an annual review based on calendar-year performance (January 1 through December 31). 

Post-Tenure Productivity Review 
Tenured academic appointees will also complete a post-tenure productivity review no later than five years after the effective date of tenure and at least every five years thereafter, in compliance with Indiana law. 

• The first post-tenure productivity review will assess the faculty member’s performance during the five years preceding the review. 

• Subsequent post-tenure productivity reviews will assess performance during the five-year period since the most recent post-tenure productivity review. 

• The post-tenure productivity review will focus on the applicable five-year period, which the faculty member may discuss within the broader context of their academic career. 

Academic Appointees with Administrative Roles 
Academic appointees holding administrative roles—defined as chairs, directors, or higher positions with faculty supervisory responsibility, or roles with an administrative appointment of 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) or greater—will be reviewed annually by their supervisors. 

Tenured academic appointees will undergo post-tenure productivity review in the fifth year after their administrative appointment falls below 0.5 FTE.

Review Criteria

Annual Review Requirements

Annual Review and Reporting 

Each academic appointee must participate in the university’s approved performance management system to document professional activities and accomplishments during the preceding calendar-year. Reporting will address the areas of teaching and/or librarianship, research and/or creative activities, service, and personal and professional conduct, as applicable to the appointment.  

Workload Allocation 

Each unit (e.g., college, school, department, library) will: 

• Establish the academic appointee’s workload allocation with input from the appointee 

• Periodically update the allocation with input from the academic appointee 

• Maintain a record of the allocation for each review period, including any adjustments 

These records must be retained so they are available for the five‑year post‑tenure productivity review period, as applicable. 

Annual Review Documentation 

The department chair or unit head will report the results of the review through a standardized annual review report letter or by using the report generated by the university's approved performance management system. 

The annual review documentation must include the following: 

• A standard introductory paragraph stating that the review is required by policy, that the evaluation may be used for potential merit increases, and identifying the evaluation period 

• Reference to the faculty member’s approved workload allocation in teaching and/or librarianship, research and/or creative activities, and service 

• A summary of the university‑level standard performance rating categories used for annual review:  
  • Exceeds Expectations 
  • Meets Expectations 
  • Does Not Meet Expectations

• A written summary and performance rating for each assigned area of responsibility 

• Documentation of any deficiencies in any area of responsibility 

• An overall performance rating 

Discipline‑Specific Criteria 

On each campus, each school, college, and/or department will maintain discipline‑specific criteria that clearly describe productivity expectations for all faculty members and are comparable to the academic standards of peer institutions. These criteria must: 

• Take into consideration the productivity requirements of the discipline 

• Be adaptable to approved differential ranks and workload allocations in teaching and/or librarianship, research and/or creative activities, and service 

• Be written clearly so that a faculty member understands the level of productivity or performance required to earn each performance rating 

Each campus, school, college, and/or department will review and revise these criteria no fewer than every three years. 

Performance Improvement Plan Requirement 

If an academic appointee receives an overall performance rating of “does not meet expectations” in a given calendar-year, the appointee must be placed on a PIP to address the identified deficiencies, except in extenuating circumstances. 

Post‑Tenure Productivity Review Requirements 

The post‑tenure productivity review evaluates faculty performance over the preceding five‑year period and incorporates the faculty member’s annual review evaluations from that period. 

Required Post-Tenure Productivity Review Documentation 

In compliance with IC 21‑38‑3.5, and in addition to the review described in IC 21‑39.5‑2, the post‑tenure productivity review must include the following: 

• The faculty member’s teaching workload 

• The total number of undergraduate and graduate students taught 

• The time devoted to instructional assignments and to supervising graduate students 

• The faculty member’s research and/or creative activities productivity 

Faculty Members Meeting or Exceeding Expectations 

If the faculty member received overall ratings of “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations” in all annual reviews within the five‑year review period, the faculty member must submit: 

• Required post‑tenure productivity review documentation 

• An updated curriculum vitae (CV) 

• The approved workload allocation  

Faculty Members Not Meeting Expectations 

If the faculty member received one or more overall ratings of “does not meet expectations” in any annual review during the five‑year review period, the faculty member must submit: 

• Required post‑tenure productivity review documentation 

• An updated CV 

• The approved workload allocation  

• A statement of no more than three pages summarizing accomplishments and productivity over the previous five years 

Review Cycle 
Each tenured faculty member will complete a post-tenure review five years after their effective tenure date and every five years thereafter in compliance with Indiana law. The first post-tenure review shall assess the tenured faculty member’s performance in the five prior years, and subsequent post-tenure reviews shall assess the performance in the five-year period since the most recent post-tenure review. The focus of the post-tenure review is the five-year period, which the faculty member may discuss within the context of their academic career.

Tenured faculty members holding administrative roles (chairs, directors or higher with faculty supervisory role or 0.5 or greater administrative full-time equivalent, FTE) shall be reviewed annually by their supervisors. These tenured faculty members shall undergo post-tenure review in the fifth year after their administrative appointment drops below 0.5 FTE. 

Annual Reviews 
An annual report is required for each faculty member to assist in annual merit and salary reviews (see BOT-13, Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews). Each faculty member will complete the annual report form to report professional activities and accomplishments during the preceding year in the areas of instructional activity, scholarship and creative work, and university and public service. These annual reports and the annual review letter will be used as part of the post-tenure productivity review process. 

The review of the annual report will be conducted using the established discipline-specific criteria and the department chair/unit head will issue a standardized annual review letter for each faculty member that will include the following: 

• standard introductory paragraph indicating the review is required by policy, a statement that the evaluation will be used for potential merit increases, and identification of the evaluation period; 

• reference to the individual faculty member’s approved allocation of effort in teaching, research and service; 

• summary of university level standard performance rating categories for annual review to be used in rating the individual assigned area of responsibility and overall performance rating: 
  • Exceeds productivity expectations 
  • Meets productivity expectations 
  • Does not meet productivity expectations 
  • Unsatisfactory productivity 

• written summary and performance rating in each assigned area of responsibility; 

• an overall performance rating; and 

• documentation of concerns. 

On each campus, each school, college and/or department shall have discipline-specific criteria that clearly describes productivity expectations for tenured faculty members that is commensurate with the academic standards of peer institutions. These specific criteria shall: (1) take into consideration the productivity requirements of the discipline; (2) be adaptable to approved differential allocation of effort in the productivity areas of teaching, scholarship and service; and (3) be clearly written such that a reasonable faculty member should not be uncertain or confused about what level of productivity or performance is expected to earn each performance rating.  Each campus, school, college and/or department shall review and revise its criteria no fewer than every three years.   

Post-Tenure Review Requirements 
All tenured faculty members must meet academic productivity responsibilities in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service. Unless otherwise specified by the job description or an approved differential allocation of effort, the default allocation of productivity areas for the IU R1 campuses (Bloomington and Indianapolis) is 40% teaching, 40% scholarship, and 20% service, and for the regional campuses is 60% teaching, 20% scholarship and 20% service for all tenured faculty members. The default allocation of productivity for tenured librarians is 80% library services, 10% scholarship, and 10% service.  

In compliance with IC 21-38-3.5 and in addition to the review described in IC 21-39.5-2, the post-tenure review process for tenured faculty members will measure productivity and include, at a minimum, the following: 

• The faculty member's teaching workload. 

• The total number of students who the faculty member teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level. 

• The time spent on instructional assignments and the time spent on overseeing graduate students. 

• The research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member. 

A productivity performance rating will be given to each tenured faculty member at Indiana University. The rating categories for post-tenure review will include the following university level categories and definitions: 

1. Exceeds productivity expectations: Record of productivity and performance for this faculty member clearly and substantially exceeds expectations.
2. Meets productivity expectations: Record of productivity and performance for this faculty member demonstrates a sustained record of performance. Annual reports for this faculty member provide evidence of an overall sustained meet expectations or higher rating during the last 5 years in the areas of productivity.
3. Does not meet productivity expectations: Performance falls below the productivity expectations outlined for the faculty member. A faculty member who receives an overall unsatisfactory rating for their annual report during one of the previous 5 years and/or has demonstrated a pattern of failing to perform duties assigned by Indiana University, and/or has sustained violations of applicable state and federal law and/or Indiana University policies and procedures, all noted in the annual reports, are evidence of does not meet productivity expectations.
4. Unsatisfactory productivity: Faculty member has failed to meet the expectations for productivity and performance. The faculty member has received an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating for two or more of the previous 5 years, and/or has demonstrated a pattern of failing to perform duties assigned by Indiana University, and/or has sustained violations of applicable state and federal law and Indiana University policies and procedures, all noted in the annual reports, are evidence of unsatisfactory productivity.

Back to top

Reason for Policy

Indiana University depends on the professional performance, conduct, and contributions of its academic appointees. This policy establishes a consistent framework for evaluating academic appointee performance and productivity.

On each campus the following procedures will be followed for completion of the post-tenure productivity review: 

1. The faculty member will provide a curriculum vitae and a single page per productivity area (e.g. teaching, scholarship, and service) highlighting accomplishments and summarizing productivity over the previous five years. Faculty members will submit these documents to their department chair/unit head. 
2. Faculty member’s department chair/unit head will review the materials submitted by the faculty member, along with the last five years of annual report letters. Additional information that was not included in the annual reports regarding community engagement, sponsored research, performances, etc. may also be reviewed. The department chair/unit head will provide a written assessment of the overall productivity of the faculty member. The collection of these materials will be considered the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and will be submitted to the dean’s office. Each campus dean will determine if the department chair/unit head will recommend an initial overall productivity rating.  Each campus dean may request a department chair/unit head to provide an overall initial productivity rating.  
3. The dean of each school and/or college may choose to convene a post-tenure review committee to assist in the assessment of the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packets. This committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the dean. 
4. The dean will review the materials and assess the faculty member’s disciplinary record in their personnel file. The dean will add a brief letter that assesses and recommends the faculty member’s productivity rating for the five-year period under review. 
5. The dean will provide their letter and all materials from the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet to the faculty member for their review. The faculty member will have ten (10) business days from receipt of the dean’s letter to submit an optional response that can be added to the packet before it moves to the campus Chief Academic Officer for review. 
6. The dean will forward the packet to the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) for review. 
7. The CAO shall review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity, professional conduct, academic responsibilities, and performance during the review period. The CAO may accept, reject, or modify the dean’s recommended rating. Each faculty member reviewed will receive a final performance rating from the CAO:
   1. Exceeds productivity expectations
   2. Meets productivity expectations
   3. Does not meet productivity expectations
   4. Unsatisfactory productivity

8.  The CAO will forward the packet along with their recommendation to the chancellor, who will review the dossier and accept, reject, or modify the CAO’s recommended rating. The Chancellor will send their recommendation to the President.

Productivity Rating Results and Performance Improvement Plans 
In compliance with IC 21-38-3.5, a process must be established that requires a faculty member be placed on probation, which may result in dismissal of the faculty member if established productivity requirements are not met. 

A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “exceeds productivity expectations” or “meets productivity expectations” will continue through the established campus, school/college, and unit merit and salary review processes. 

For a faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “does not meet productivity expectations,” the dean, in consultation with the faculty member and the faculty member’s department chair/unit head, will develop a performance improvement plan. The performance improvement plan will be submitted to the CAO for review. The CAO and Chancellor will discuss modifications and finalize the improvement plan. 

1. All performance improvement plans shall outline that the faculty member will be on probation for a specific duration of time which will not extend more than 12 months past the date a faculty member receives the final performance plan from the CAO. The imposition of probation under this policy shall serve as the one-year notice period that the faculty member is subject to dismissal unless the requirements of the plan are met. The plan must also indicate that failure to achieve the requirements of the plan may result in dismissal.
   1. The performance improvement plan will outline specific deficiencies in the productivity of the faculty member’s performance and how it will be remedied.  The performance improvement plan shall indicate how specific deficiencies in a faculty member’s performance (as measured against university standards and college and unit criteria) will be remedied. It is the faculty member’s obligation to assist in the development of a meaningful and effective plan and to make a good faith effort to implement the plan adopted. Although each performance improvement plan is tailored to individual circumstances, the plan must: list specific deficiencies to be addressed; define specific goals or outcomes necessary to remedy the deficiencies; outline the activities to be undertaken to achieve the necessary outcomes; identify institutional resources available to support the plan; set timelines for achieving goals and outcomes; and indicate the criteria for assessment in regular reviews of progress. 
   2. The faculty member and department chair/unit head will meet regularly to review the faculty member’s progress toward remedying deficiencies. The faculty member will provide end of semester progress reports to the department chair/unit head and to the dean.  
2. A faculty member who fails to meet the probation requirements of their performance improvement plan from the post-tenure productivity review by the established deadline may result in dismissal. The CAO, in consultation with the dean and department chair, shall make a recommendation for dismissal to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will accept, reject, or modify the CAO’s recommendation. The Chancellor will send their recommendation to the President. The CAO will issue the final decision for faculty members who fail to meet their probation and performance improvement plan requirements.   
3. A faculty member who receives a final productivity performance rating of “unsatisfactory” shall receive a notice of dismissal from the CAO.  
4. A faculty member adversely affected by the final decision issued by the CAO has the right to a campus Faculty Board of Review (see ACA-17: Faculty Board of Review Uniform Standards).  
5. The dismissal process set forth herein for failure of a faculty member to meet the requirements of the performance improvement plan is distinct from and supersedes the separation processes and requirements set forth in BOT-18: Permanent Separations for Academic Appointees.  

The five-year post-tenure productivity review should not be the first time that a tenured faculty member who has received an overall annual report rating of unsatisfactory rating should be on a performance improvement plan. School/college and/or units should establish procedures to create performance improvement plans for tenured faculty members who receive an overall annual report rating of unsatisfactory. Evidence that the faculty member has met the requirements of the performance improvement plan can be used as evidence in the five-year post-tenure productivity review for the “meets productivity” expectation. 

Final decisions regarding post-tenure review may be appealed through a campus faculty board of review (see ACA-17: Faculty Board of Review Uniform Standards). Upon notification of probation due to productivity requirements not being met through the post-tenure productivity review and upon the second annual report rating of unsatisfactory within a five-year post-tenure productivity review period, the faculty member shall be informed that failure to meet performance improvement plans may result in dismissal. Termination will occur no sooner than 12 months from the notification of probation and/or the second annual report rating of unsatisfactory (see BOT-18: Permanent Separations for Academic Appointees). 

Appendix A: Post-Tenure Productivity Review Timeline 

May 2025: The 2026-2027 Indiana State Budget (House Bill 1001) states that the board of trustees shall establish a review process with regard to department level promotions and tenure expectations and a post-tenure review process for tenured faculty members that measures productivity.  

June 2025: Indiana University Board of Trustees create and establish policy for post-tenure review process to be in compliance with IC 21-38-3.5.  

July 1, 2025: IC 21-38-3.5 goes into effect and requires all tenured faculty members to complete a post-tenure review process. 

Summer 2025: University Faculty Council (UFC) reviews and recommends changes to BOT-13: Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews to establish standardized performance rating categories and develop a template for the annual review letter. 

Campuses are charged with the task of establishing discipline-specific criteria that clearly describes productivity expectations for tenured faculty members commensurate with the academic standards of peer research institutions, or a leading regional comprehensive public university. These specific criteria shall: (1) take into consideration the productivity requirements of the discipline; (2) be adaptable to approved differential allocation of effort in the productivity areas of teaching, scholarship and service; and (3) be clearly written such that a reasonable faculty member should not be uncertain or confused about what level of productivity or performance is expected to earn each performance rating. 

Each IU campus works with their faculty governance structures and the dean in the schools and/or colleges to establish a working group to establish discipline-specific criteria that clearly describes productivity expectations. 

October 2025: Working groups in the school, college and/or department/unit present the faculty with proposed draft criteria for feedback.  

UFC creates standardized templates for the written assessment from the department chair/unit head and summary letter from the dean for post-tenure productivity. A standardized template for the performance improvement plan for post-tenure productivity and end of semester progress reports will also be created. 

December 2025: Through the faculty governance structure, the final criteria to be used are presented and approved in the school, college, and/or department/unit. These criteria take effect for the annual report and annual review conducted in the spring of 2027 covering calendar year 2026 and beyond. For prior years, faculty will be assessed based on previously approved annual report and annual review criteria. 

Spring 2026: The end of academic year 25-26 will constitute the first year under IC 21-38-3.5. The timeline for Indiana University to review all tenured faculty members will be outlined based on the date on which tenure is granted for each faculty member in compliance with Indiana law. For faculty members hired with tenure, the hire date will constitute the date that tenure went into effect. A scaffolding approach will be used to complete the post-tenure review for all current faculty members.  

April 2026: In the first year following the effective date of IC 21-38-3.5, 20% of tenured faculty members with the most longevity as tenured faculty will be evaluated, in addition to faculty members who have had tenure in effect for the five prior years. 

January 2027: Post-tenure productivity discipline-specific criteria are used in the annual report processes. 

Spring 2027-Spring 2030: In each of the second, third, fourth, and fifth years following the effective date of IC 21-38-3.5, 20% of tenured faculty, annually, who have the most longevity as a tenured faculty member and who have not received a post-tenure productivity review will be evaluated in addition to faculty who have had tenure in effect for the five prior years. 

Back to top

Procedures

Annual Report Procedures 

To support the annual review process, academic appointees will submit annual reports documenting professional activities and accomplishments using a university‑wide annual report form maintained by the Academic Leadership Council (ALC) Executive Committee for use across all campuses and units. In consultation with the UFC, the ALC Executive Committee may determine the scope, content, routing, and timing of the reports. The form will allow individuals to report professional activities and accomplishments from the preceding year and to voluntarily provide additional information beyond the required areas. 

Annual Review Process 

Annual reviews will be conducted by the department chair or unit head, or their designee, in consultation with a faculty committee, in accordance with procedures approved by the unit’s faculty governance organization. 

Annual reviews may include a discussion of the faculty member’s career progress. During this discussion, the appointee may be informed of matters relevant to progress toward tenure and/or promotion. The appointee should be provided with a written summary of the career progress review. 

Academic appointees and the department chairs or unit heads are expected to cooperate in the review process to ensure that review files contain all relevant materials. 

Annual Review and Salary 

Each campus may adopt procedures to guide the use of annual review outcomes in determining a faculty member’s salary based on merit. Such procedures must be consistent with the university's fiscal and human resources policy regarding compensation for academic appointees. 

Salary policies at all levels must be written and publicly available. Units must report annually to faculty on the implementation of these policies.

Post-Tenure Productivity Review Procedures 

On each campus, the following procedures will be followed to complete the post-tenure productivity review. The faculty member’s department chair or unit head will review: 

• Materials submitted by the faculty member 

• Annual review report letters or performance management system reports from the applicable five-year review period 

• Additional relevant information, when applicable (e.g., community engagement, sponsored research, performances) 

The department chair or unit head will prepare a written assessment of the faculty member’s overall productivity. Together, these materials will constitute the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and will be submitted to the Dean’s office. 

Each Dean may request that the department chair or unit head include an overall initial productivity rating. If annual reports are not available for the full five-year review period, the unit will determine a protocol for completing the post-tenure productivity review. 

Post-Tenure Productivity Review Committee 

The Dean may convene a post‑tenure productivity review committee to assist in evaluating the Post‑Tenure Productivity Review Packet. The committee serves in an advisory role to the Dean in assessing the five‑year review period.

Dean Review 

The Dean will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity during the five-year review period. The Dean will add a brief letter recommending a productivity rating for the faculty member. 

Faculty Review and Response 

Before forwarding the packet to the Chief Academic Officer (CAO), the Dean will provide the faculty member with the Dean’s letter and all materials included in the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet. 

The faculty member will have ten (10) business days from the submission of the Dean’s letter to submit an optional written response. If submitted, the response will be added to the packet before it is forwarded to the campus CAO. 

Chief Academic Officer Review 

The CAO will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and assess the faculty member’s productivity during the review period. The CAO may accept or modify the Dean’s recommended rating. 

Each faculty member will receive one of the following final performance ratings from the CAO: 

• Meets Expectations 

• Does Not Meet Expectations 

• Unsatisfactory 

Chancellor Review and Final Recommendation 

The CAO will forward the packet, along with their recommendation, to the Chancellor. The Chancellor will review the Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet and may accept or modify the CAO’s recommended rating. The Chancellor will then forward their recommendation to the President for approval. 

Post-Tenure Productivity Review Rating Results and Performance Improvement Plan  

Productivity Ratings of “Meets Expectations” 

A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “meets expectations” has successfully completed the post-tenure productivity review process. The faculty member’s next review cycle will occur five years thereafter. 

Productivity Rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” 

In compliance with IC 21‑38‑3.5, a faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “does not meet productivity expectations” will be placed on a PIP. 

The Dean, or their designee, in consultation with the faculty member and the faculty member’s department chair or unit head, or their designee, will develop and approve the PIP. The PIP will be forwarded to the CAO for review and approval. 

The faculty member will have 12 months from the effective date of the PIP to complete its requirements. Failure to successfully meet the requirements of the plan may result in termination of employment. 

Productivity Rating of “Unsatisfactory” 

A faculty member who receives a final productivity rating of “unsatisfactory” will have their employment terminated at the end of the academic year. 

 Performance Improvement Plan Requirements 

The PIP will identify specific and actionable concerns related to the faculty member’s productivity and describe how those concerns will be addressed in the areas of teaching, research, service, or librarianship. The faculty member should be actively engaged in the development of a meaningful and effective plan and is expected to make a good‑faith effort to implement it. Failure or refusal to implement the PIP may result in termination of employment. 

Although each PIP is tailored to the individual circumstances of the faculty member, the plan must, at a minimum: 

• State an effective and completion date 

• Identify the specific areas requiring improvement 

• Define the goals or outcomes necessary to address those areas 

• Outline the actions to be taken to achieve the identified goals or outcomes 

• Identify the institutional resources that will support the plan 

• Establish timelines for achieving the goals and outcomes 

• Specify the criteria for assessing progress through regular reviews 

• Establish a schedule of meetings to review the faculty member’s progress 

Progress Reporting 

The faculty member must submit end‑of‑semester progress reports to the department chair or unit head. The department chair or unit head will share the progress report, along with any comments, with the Dean. 

Completion or Failure of the Performance Improvement Plan  

A faculty member who meets the requirements of the PIP by the established completion date is considered to have met productivity expectations and will not be subject to dismissal under this policy. 

A faculty member who does not meet the requirements of the PIP by the established completion date may be subject to dismissal. The CAO, in consultation with the Dean and the department chair or unit head, shall recommend termination of employment to the Chancellor. The Chancellor may accept or modify the recommendation and will forward their decision to the President. The CAO shall issue the final termination of employment decision. 

Right to Appeal 

A faculty member adversely affected by a post‑tenure productivity review decision has the right to appeal to a campus Faculty Board of Review, in accordance with ACA‑17: Faculty Board of Review Uniform Standards. 

Back to top

History

June 12, 2025 – New policy

December 5, 2025 – Clarifications to aid implementation

[Month] [Year]- Substantive revisions

Back to top