Heather Detrixhe
Managing Editor
Tenured professors are safe from review for at least one more month.
The University of Houston System has been struggling to implement a post-tenure review policy at each of the four universities since August 1997. This is in response to the passing of Senate Bill 149 by the Texas State Legislature last year.
SB 149 requires universities to review tenured faculty at least once every six years.
If performance is deemed unsatisfactory, a review board may revoke the professor's tenure.
While all of the universities in the UH System have some sort of performance review policy, each has had to adopt a more intensive annual review to meet requirements of the law.
According to Wendy Adair, associate vice-president for university relations, the UH policy allows for the dismissal of tenured faculty because of "gross incompetence, negligence and dishonesty."
The current review policy is an informal one, used to award promotions, grant tenures and increase salaries, Adair said.
Each of the UH-System universities submitted to the board Monday proposed new policies that were developed according to standard system-wide guidelines. None were approved.
The guidelines stipulated that each policy should include an annual departmental review, a peer review least once every six years and a plan by which professors receiving unsatisfactory reviews could be rehabilitated.
Largely due to vague wording of the process for rehabilitating professors, the Board sent each proposal back to be rewritten with consideration to certain stipulations.
Though the board recognized the different needs and different sizes of each university, the UH version was refereed to as a model for the other schools.
UH's version provided that each faculty member would undergo a performance review each year.
This review could be conducted by a committee of peers, but each department would decide how to conduct the evaluations.
If a UH professor is found "unsatisfactory" twice
consecutively, he or she would be placed on a "development
plan," which would be determined by the professor, the
department chair, the dean of the college and the provost.
This period would allow the professor to improve his or her performance.
After a year, the professor's performance would be evaluated again, and the process would start over.
In the UH-Clear Lake plan this period of reform would be designed by departmental peers. Additionally, professors would be expected to complete a concurrent "remediation period."
The board asked that the provision indicate that the remediation period would be determined by the dean or department head.
The UH-Victoria proposal included a similar remediation period. The board asked that this be omitted because it duplicated the developmental period.
The plan for UH Downtown left out how many years were allowed for rehabilitation. It was approved on the contingency that it include a one to three year limit.
Each revised proposal will be submitted to the board at its next meeting on April 16.
Though board members grappled with details of each policy, most said the new post-tenure review would help improve and sustain a quality university.
"We are committed to making our post-tenure review focused on development, not dismissal," said Regent Eduardo Aguirre. "We are looking for a tighter process for accountability and review."