admin banner
gray bar2
gray bar3

Faculty Affairs

 

Annual Department Chair and Dean Review - Purpose

General Considerations

It is the School's desire that all faculty members be given an opportunity to advance their academic careers and achieve their professional goals. As part of this process, the Medical School considers periodic reviews of each faculty member an essential part of career planning, assessment and development. The periodic reviews should serve as a venue for evaluating progress with respect to individual career goals vis a vis the missions of the department, School and the UTHSC-H.

The general intent is for the review process to be objective and meaningful and at the same time not overly burdensome for all concerned.

ALL faculty (tenured and non-tenured, full-time and part-time) including department chairs and academic administrators, will be evaluated annually with a more comprehensive evaluation occurring every six years. Exceptions may be made by the Dean in case of overlap with an approved leave or other comprehensive review, such as used for promotion/tenure.

The purpose of the six-year evaluation will be to encompass a broader view of accomplish-ments in the preceding six-year period and encourage long-range planning. In the case of tenured faculty members, it will also fulfill the UT Board of Regents' mandated post-tenure review.

Annual Faculty Review

  1. The Annual Faculty Review will be conducted by the department chair and should include: self-evaluation, peer evaluation, evaluation by the department chair and for all teaching faculty, summaries of student/trainee evaluations. In very large departments (e.g., Internal Medicine, Surgery), the chair may designate a division head, section chief or immediate supervisor to conduct the annual review of faculty under their purview. In all cases, the department chair will be responsible for the timely and proper conduct of the reviews. Peer input should be provided by a Departmental Peer Committee appointed by the chair (e.g., existing departmental FAPTC). In rare and extenuating circumstances the input for senior faculty members serving on a Department Peer Committee may be provided by the School Faculty Review Committee, if the department chair can present good justification for not utilizing the internal process.
  2. It is the faculty member's right and obligation to be an active participant as an advocate for achieving his/her career goals and to serve the university in a manner that optimally utilizes his/her skills.
  3. The review will assess the faculty member's performance in teaching, research, patient care, service and administration, where applicable. Progress should be evaluated in light of assignments, goals and expectations documented during the previous annual review or at the time of initial appointment.
  4. The review process should include a discussion, delineation and clear understanding of the expectations and assignments in the context of the faculty member's academic career goals. These goals must be aligned with the School's promotion and tenure criteria, as well as with the missions of the department, School and the HSC. The chair and faculty member should identify and resolve potential obstacles or conflicts, as well as determine appropriate resources needed for achieving these expectations.
  5. The faculty member and the chair will sign the annual review form indicating that past performance, goals and assignments were discussed. In case of disagreement, the faculty member and the chair may document in writing the reason(s) for their disagreement and, if desired, seek input from the Dean. These comments should be attached to the annual review form.
  6. The completed and signed annual review form, with all attachments, will be forwarded to the Dean by December 1 of the current academic year. Copies of the review should be retained by both the department and the faculty member.
  7. The Annual Faculty Review in the sixth year should be completed prior to the Six-Year Review by the School Faculty Review Committee.
  8. Annual reviews of the department chairs will be conducted by the Dean with input from faculty members of their respective departments.

Six-Year Faculty Review

  1. The Six-Year Faculty Review will be initiated at the departmental level. The faculty member being reviewed will submit the annual reviews from the preceding six-year period and other supporting material he/she deems important, for input by the Departmental Peer Committee (e.g., departmental FAPTC) and the chair. The chair will notify the faculty member six months prior to the deadline for submission of these materials.
  2. The Annual Faculty Reviews and other supporting material, will be forwarded for evaluation by a School Faculty Review Committee appointed by and advisory to the Dean (with input from the School faculty).
  3. The review process will take into account the statements of expectations and assignments from letters of offer and annual reviews. Further information may be requested at any step from the faculty member under review. The review outcome will be communicated in writing to the faculty member, the department chair and the Dean within a reasonable time.
  4. Information obtained in the review will be used to recognize level of performance and determine appropriate actions:

    Category 1.
    For faculty with satisfactory performance, the review may be used to determine salary recommendations, nomination for awards, or other forms of performance recognition.

    Category 2.
    For faculty whose performance indicates they would benefit from additional institutional assistance, the review should be used to determine where assistance may be provided, e.g., teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, mentoring in research issues/service expectations, etc.

    Faculty in Category 2 must receive specific advice from the department chair in conjunction with the Dean on how to improve. The faculty member will receive written guidelines for improvement along with necessary assistance and a time line needed for demonstrating improvement. Progress will be monitored in subsequent annual evaluations.

    Category 3.
    For faculty whose performance is unsatisfactory, review for termination, as provided in the Regents' Rules and Regulations may be considered. Faculty in Category 3 will have appropriate action initiated by the departmental chair or the Dean that may include the following:

    1. Dismissal for cause of tenured faculty by processes detailed in the HOOP (4.08 Termination for Good Cause) and in the Regents' Rules and Regulations (Part I, Chapter III, Section 6.3).
    2. Termination of non-tenured faculty members by non-reappointment processes detailed in the HOOP (4.09 Reappointment and Non-reappointment).
    3. Other appropriate remediation.

    Faculty in Categories 2 and 3 will have the opportunity to submit additional information to the department chair and/or the Dean and will have the right to initiate a faculty grievance.

  5. The completed Six-Year Faculty Review will be submitted to the Dean, who will forward a copy to the Executive Vice President for Research and Academic Affairs with comments as appropriate.
  6. The six-year comprehensive review process will be phased in over a six-year period, beginning no later than September, 1998. Tenured faculty members will be evaluated on a six-year cycle determined by the academic year of their award of tenure or the academic year of their last comprehensive review. Non-tenured faculty will be evaluated on a six-year cycle determined by the academic year of their appointment or the academic year of their last comprehensive review.
  7. The six-year review of department chairs will be conducted by the Dean and should include evaluation by all faculty of the respective departments. The department chairs should be evaluated with regard to their academic contributions as well as administrative leadership skills, including recruitment and retention of faculty members, support of faculty development, and compliance with the annual and six-year review processes. Whenever feasible, the six-year evaluation of department chairs should be coordinated with the ongoing periodic reviews of their respective departments.

Charge to Departmental Chairs

  1. New faculty should be appointed to the appropriate track based on their qualifications, experience and duties. Institutional needs must be taken into consideration when appointing faculty to the tenure track. It is the institutional desire that all faculty members achieve their professional career goals and every tenure track faculty member eventually achieves tenure. It is the responsibility of the chair to mentor (or assure mentoring of) faculty members to help them advance their academic careers.
  2. Letters of offer from department chairs must set forth expectations and assignments, which should be compatible with success in the position. For example, junior faculty appointed to tenure track positions must be given an explicit written statement about requirements for scholarship and the amount of protected time that will be available for scholarly activities. It is recognized that assignments may have to be modified over time as needs of the department, School and institution change. Changes in assignments should be clearly communicated and mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the chair.
  3. New faculty members must be provided with:
    1. current copy of guidelines for establishing rank and tenure at UT-Houston Medical School
    2. Medical School Faculty Bylaws
    3. guidance from a designated faculty mentor
    4. knowledge of and access to the Faculty Guide and the Handbook of Operating Procedures (HOOP), both available on line.
  4. It is the responsibility of the chair to assure that all faculty reviews are carried out conscientiously and equitably.

Charge to the Dean

  1. The Dean will ensure that the Annual Faculty Review and Six-Year Faculty Reviews are appropriately performed for all faculty.
  2. The Dean will conduct annual reviews of the department chairs and the associate and assistant deans. Anonymous input into these reviews will be solicited from faculty within the appropriate department/School. Annual review of the Dean will be conducted by the Executive Vice President for Research and Academic Affairs, with anonymous input from the faculty and department chairs.
  3. Six-year reviews of academic administrators will be in accordance with HOOP policy (Reviews of Administrators).
  4. The Dean, with advice from the faculty, will appoint a School Faculty Review Committee to perform the six-year comprehensive faculty evaluations.
  5. Should a faculty member's performance indicate need for improvement (Category 2), the Dean in conjunction with the department chair will provide written guidelines for improvement, assistance as may be indicated, and a time-line for achieving the agreed-upon goals.
  6. The Dean (or department chair) may initiate one of the following steps for a faculty member whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory (Category 3) :
    1. Dismissal for cause of tenured faculty by processes detailed in the HOOP (4.08 Termination for Good Cause) and the Regents' Rules and Regulations (Part 1, Chapter III, Section 6.3)
    2. Termination of non-tenured faculty members by non-reappointment process detailed in the HOOP (4.09 Reappointment and Non-reappointment)
    3. Other appropriate remediation
  7. The Dean shall receive the completed Six-Year Review for each faculty member and will forward a copy to the Executive Vice President for Research and Academic affairs with his comments as appropriate.
  8. The Dean will evaluate the department chairs on their academic contributions as well as on their record in faculty recruitment, development, and retention.
  9. The Dean shall charge the department chairs to develop and implement a strategic plan to encompass goals and outcome measures to ensure an ongoing focus on faculty recruitment, development and career planning. The Dean will hold the chairs accountable in these areas.

Guidelines for the Departmental Peer Committee

  1. The Departmental Peer Committee should evaluate the Annual Faculty Review form. All appendices should be included and considered.
  2. The Departmental Peer Committee should assess the information on the Review form and any additional materials for the following level of performance:
    • Category 1 - satisfactory
    • Category 2 - performance will benefit from additional institutional assistance
    • Category 3 - unsatisfactory
  3. While it is anticipated that most assessments will be in the Category 1 level, the Departmental Peer Committee should add comments to explain a Category 2 or Category 3 assessment. Other comments as appropriate may be made.

Guidelines for the School Faculty Review Committee

  1. For tenured faculty members, the six-year review process should not be a repeat of the process used for attaining tenure. Primary consideration should be continuous valuable contributions to the missions of the department, School and UT-HSC.
  2. The review should be "track appropriate."
  3. The School Faculty Review Committee should consider in its review, the goals, expectations, assignments, and resources that were agreed upon by the faculty member and the chair.
  4. The committee should review scholarly activity from the broad perspective of scholarship of discovery, application, integration, and teaching.
  5. The committee must consider factors beyond the individual faculty member's control that may have impacted performance.
  6. The committee may request additional information.
  7. All of the material provided to the committee will be considered confidential.
  8. The complete review pocket with the committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the Dean.