91原创

Comments on the draft Standard Operating Procedure should be sent to provost@ohio.edu with the title "Post-Tenure Review" by April 13, 2026.

1. Purpose

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is issued under University Policy 18.013 (Post-Tenure Review). It provides the required procedures and timelines for post-tenure review (PTR) at 91原创 per Ohio Revised Code 搂3345.453.

2. Definitions

1. Academic unit. The administrative department, school, or equivalent that is responsible for conducting the annual evaluation.
2. Annual activity report. The formal written report prepared by faculty and submitted to their department chair, school director, or equivalent.
3. Annual evaluation. The formal, institutionally required process in which a faculty member鈥檚 performance over the previous academic year is reviewed and assessed in all assigned workload areas 鈮�5% of their total annual FTE.
4. Appeal. A formal request by a faculty member for reconsideration of an outcome of post-tenure review. Appeals must follow the procedures and timelines specified in the 鈥淎ppeals鈥� section of this SOP.
5. Censure. A formal written reprimand that documents a concern about faculty performance or conduct. It may be issued as an outcome of a post-tenure review, but it does not, in itself, involve changes to appointment status or compensation.
6. Evaluation criteria. The broad categories of faculty responsibility (e.g., teaching, RSCA (research/scholarship/creative activity), service, clinical, and/or administration) used to judge the quality and effectiveness of performance.
7. Evaluators. An individual or group of individuals who assess performance metrics and assign performance ratings in the areas of teaching, RSCA, service, administrative duties (if applicable), and clinical duties (if applicable). Evaluators may include, but are not limited to, department chairs/school directors, program directors, or other designated faculty person(s) responsible for reviewing evidence of performance.
8. Mutual Consent Resolution. An agreement among the faculty member, chair/director, dean, and provost to resolve the post-tenure review collaboratively at various stages without proceeding through all levels of the process.
9. Performance metrics. The indicators used to evaluate contributions within each workload area. Performance metrics are expected to be:
   1. Standardized. Applied uniformly across faculty members using consistent definitions, rubrics, or procedures.
   2. Objective. Based on verifiable and observable evidence rather than personal opinion or bias.
   3. Measurable. Capable of being quantified or assessed against defined benchmarks or thresholds.
10. Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA). A written plan outlining specific performance deficiencies, goals, and timelines for improvement, developed collaboratively by the faculty member, academic leadership, and administrative reviewers. A PIA is one potential outcome of post-tenure review.
11. Performance ratings. The required three-level assessment of each workload area: exceeds performance expectations, meets performance expectations, or does not meet performance expectations.
12. Post-Tenure Review (PTR). A formal, structured evaluation process conducted after a faculty member has earned tenure. At 91原创, it is initiated under specific conditions defined by state law and institutional policy to ensure continued faculty development and accountability.
13. Professional ethics. The expectation that faculty adhere to the ethical standards of their discipline, the policies of 91原创, and broader professional or licensure obligations. Professional ethics encompass integrity in teaching, RSCA, service, and conduct, including compliance with laws, regulations, and institutional requirements.
14. Professional judgment. The reasoned and informed interpretation of evidence by experienced peers or administrators, guided by established standards and disciplinary context.
15. Reduction in FTE. A decrease in a faculty member鈥檚 full-time employment percentage (e.g., 1.0 FTE to 0.9 FTE), which typically results in a proportional reduction in salary. This can be either temporary or permanent and must be explicitly documented in post-tenure review outcomes.
16. Suspension of Duties. A temporary or permanent reassignment or removal of a faculty member from specific duties (e.g., teaching, RSCA, service). This may be accompanied by adjustments in workload distribution or a reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE).
17. Tenured Faculty Member. A faculty member who has successfully earned tenure through the tenure review process (as specified in University Policy 18.012: Faculty Tenure) at 91原创.
18. Underperformance. A sustained pattern of faculty activity that does not meet the standards defined by the department/school, college, or university in one or more areas of responsibility (i.e., teaching, RSCA, service, administration, clinical).

3. Guiding Principles

Post-tenure reviews at 91原创 are guided by the following principles:

1. Accountability. Faculty are accountable for performance in assigned workload areas. Evaluators and administrators are likewise accountable for applying post-tenure review procedures as written, following timelines, and documenting decisions in accordance with policy.
2. Agency and Representation. Faculty under review must be given a meaningful opportunity to represent their contributions. Faculty may submit contextualizing materials (e.g., statements, portfolios, or narratives), and those conducting reviews must be aware of workload differences, appointment types, and potential sources of evaluation bias.
3. Academic Freedom. Evaluations cannot violate academic freedom and must respect faculty rights.
4. Clarity. Evaluation criteria and expectations should be clearly stated and consistently applied. Ambiguity in procedures, performance standards, or documentation requirements must be minimized to promote fair outcomes.
5. Consistency. Post-tenure reviews must follow a common process across the institution. While disciplinary standards for performance may vary, procedural steps鈥攊ncluding initiation criteria, documentation, timelines, and levels of review鈥攎ust be implemented uniformly.
6. Contextualization. Evaluations should reflect the faculty member鈥檚 workload distribution, appointment type, and career stage. Reviewers must consider the professional context when interpreting performance and outcomes.
7. Professional Ethics. Faculty are expected to adhere to professional standards of their discipline or licensure requirements, institutional policies, and ethical obligations in teaching, RSCA, service, administrative responsibilities (if applicable), and clinical responsibilities (if applicable).
8. Professional Judgment. Evaluators are expected to interpret evidence in a reasoned and informed manner, guided by standards, metrics, and disciplinary context. Professional judgment should be used to ensure that evaluations consider both measurable outcomes and the significance of contributions to the university鈥檚 mission.
9. Professional Development. Post-tenure review should, when appropriate, include a developmental component. Outcomes such as training, mentoring, or performance improvement agreements should be supported by institutional resources and implemented in good faith by all parties.
10. Timeliness. The post-tenure review process must be completed within six months of initiation, except where a one-time extension of up to two months is approved by the president, in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 搂3345.453.
11. Transparency. Faculty must be notified in writing of the initiation of post-tenure review, have access to all relevant policies and standards, and be given an opportunity to submit materials for consideration. Where resolution occurs through mutual consent, agreements must be documented and approved through the appropriate administrative levels.

4. Initiation of Post-Tenure Review

Per Ohio Revised Code 搂3345.453 and University Policy 18.013, post-tenure review applies only to workload areas that constitute at least five percent (5%) or more of the faculty member鈥檚 assigned annual workload during the relevant evaluation period. A post-tenure review must be initiated under the following conditions:

1. A tenured faculty member receives a 鈥淒oes Not Meet Performance Expectations鈥� rating in the same workload area for two of the past three consecutive years on annual evaluations in a workload area meeting the 5% assignment threshold.
2. A tenured faculty member who has already undergone post-tenure review receives a 鈥淒oes Not Meet Performance Expectations鈥� rating in any workload area meeting the 5% assignment threshold within two years following the conclusion of that post-tenure review.

In addition, per Ohio Revised Code 搂3345.453 and University Policy 18.013, post-tenure review may be initiated at any time by an academic leader (department chair, school director, college dean, or provost) in cases of documented and sustained underperformance within a workload area meeting the 5% assignment threshold, provided that the initiation does not violate the faculty member鈥檚 academic freedom.

4.1 Cancellation of Post-Tenure Review

A post-tenure review must be cancelled if the triggering condition is later rescinded. For example, if an annual evaluation that initiated the post-tenure review is subsequently revised (through an appeal or other process), the post-tenure review must be cancelled, since the reason for initiating it has been eliminated. In such cases, the review must stop at the point of rescission and be recorded as cancelled to avoid triggering future reviews based on the rescinded process.

5. Post-Tenure Review Process

The post-tenure review process must follow the steps and timelines below. Per Ohio Revised Code 搂3345.453 and University Policy 18.013, the full process must be completed within six (6) months of initiation. A one-time extension of up to two (2) additional months may be granted by the President.

Step 1: Notification of Post-Tenure Review

The department chair or school director will notify faculty in writing of the initiation of a post-tenure review within five (5) business days of the decision to conduct a post-tenure review. Notification must be no later than November 15. 

After notification, faculty will have up to fifteen (15) business days to electronically share the following documents with their department chair or school director:

• A current curriculum vitae.
• Annual evaluation reports detailing activities and accomplishments for the prior three years.
• Annual evaluation letters for the prior three years.
• At the faculty member鈥檚 discretion, other relevant documents, materials, or statements that the faculty member wants to be considered.
• At the discretion of the department chair or school director, other relevant documents or materials requested for consideration.

Note: If a faculty member undergoing the post-tenure review fails to electronically share all required information listed above before the deadline, the department chair or school director has the authority to use substitute information they have available to them. Similarly, if the faculty member undergoing the post-tenure review fails to effectively organize shared information, the department chair or school director retains the right to ask the faculty member for revisions. Requested revisions must be completed within five business days.

Note: If the faculty member undergoing the post-tenure review is the department chair or school director, the dean will notify the department chair/school director and consult with department or school faculty to appoint a faculty member who agrees to serve in the role of the department chair or school director for the post-tenure review process for the duration of the process.

Step 2: Department Chair/School Director Recommendation(s)

The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator will recommend outcomes of the post-tenure review; the recommendation(s) should be one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6: Outcomes.

The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator will meet with the faculty member (virtually or in person) to discuss their recommendation(s) within ten (10) business days of receiving the documents from the faculty member The meeting should result in one of two possible outcomes:

1. Through mutual consent, the post-tenure review may be settled through one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6: Outcomes.
   • If an agreement is reached, the chair/director will send the documents and the written agreement to the dean within five (5) business days of the meeting.
   • The dean will have five (5) business days to respond to the proposed agreement. At their discretion, the Dean may request additional information and/or meet with the chair/director or faculty member under review separately or jointly. If the Dean does not support the proposed agreement, the process will move to Step 3. 
   • If the dean supports the agreement, the dean will have up to five (5) business days to send the proposed agreement to the provost. At their discretion, the provost may request additional information and/or meet with the dean, chair/director, or faculty member under review separately or jointly. If the provost does not support the proposed agreement, the process will move to Step 3.
   • If parties agree (faculty member, chair/director, dean, and the provost), the provost will submit the recommended outcome of the post-tenure review process to the president for the final decision.
2. If the faculty member and chair/director cannot come to an agreement, then the process will continue to the next step. At this time, the faculty member has 3 days to review and revise materials previously submitted in Step 1.

Step 3 (if necessary): Annual Evaluation Committee Recommendation(s)

If an agreement cannot be reached in Step 2, the members of the department/school (or equivalent) annual evaluation committee will prepare recommendation(s) proposing one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6. Outcomes.

Documents and the chair鈥檚/director鈥檚 recommendation(s) will be made available to the annual evaluation committee for review within five (5) business days of the meeting between the chair/director (or equivalent) and the faculty member. At their discretion, the annual evaluation committee may request additional information from the chair/director or the faculty member to prepare their recommendation(s).

Annual evaluation committee recommendations must be sent in writing to the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator, with a copy to the dean, within ten (10) business days of receiving the documents.

Step 4 (if necessary): Dean Recommendation(s)

The dean will recommend outcomes of the post-tenure review; the recommendations(s) should be one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6: Outcomes.

The dean will have access to the documents, chair/director recommendation(s), and committee recommendation(s) for their review. At their discretion, the dean (or designee) may request additional information from the department chair/school director, chair of the annual evaluation committee, and/or faculty member under review.

The dean will meet (virtually or in person) with the faculty member under review to discuss the dean鈥檚 recommendation within ten (10) business days following receipt of the recommendation(s) from the annual evaluation committee. . The meeting should result in one of two possible outcomes:

1. Through mutual consent, the post-tenure review may be settled through one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6. Outcomes.
   • If an agreement is reached, the dean will send the agreement in writing to the provost within five (5) business days of the meeting.
   • The provost will have five (5) business days to respond to the proposed agreement. At their discretion, the provost may request additional information and/or meet with the dean, chair/director, and/or faculty member under review separately or jointly. If the provost does not support the proposed agreement, the process will move to Step 5.
   • If parties agree (faculty member, dean, and provost), the provost will submit the recommended outcome of the post-tenure review process to the president for the final decision.
2. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dean will send the documents, the chair/director recommendation(s), annual evaluation committee recommendation(s), and the dean recommendation(s) to the provost within five (5) business days of the meeting between the dean and faculty member.

Note: For the purposes of these standard operating procedures, the dean refers to the dean of the college (or equivalent) that houses faculty member鈥檚 primary home department/school or equivalent.

Step 5 (if necessary): Provost Recommendation(s)

The provost will recommend outcomes of the post-tenure review; the recommendation(s)must be one or more of the potential outcomes described in Section 6: Outcomes.

The provost will have access to the documents, chair/director recommendation(s), committee recommendation(s), and dean recommendation(s) for their review. At their discretion, the provost (or designee) may request additional information from the department chair/school director, chair of the annual evaluation committee, and/or faculty member under review.

Within ten (10) business days following receipt of the recommendation(s) from the preceding steps, the provost will make a final recommendation and submit it to the president, with a copy sent to the dean, the department chair/school director, and the faculty member.

Final Step: Presidential Decision

The president (or designee) will issue a final decision within fifteen (15) business days following receipt of the documents and recommendation(s).

At their discretion, the president (or designee) may meet with the provost, dean, department chair/school director, chair of the annual evaluation committee, and/or faculty member under review, jointly or separately, to prepare the final decision.

At their discretion, the President鈥檚 final decision may include one or more of the potential outcomes described in the Outcomes section.

Note: The faculty member has the right to appeal the president鈥檚 decision to the president (Section 7: Appeals).

6. Outcomes

Per University Policy 18.013, the potential outcomes of the post-tenure review process include:

• Insufficient cause to support action, which is an official determination that there is insufficient evidence or cause to support corrective action or additional corrective action (if previous corrective action has been initiated).
• Written warning, which refers to official communication in writing that informs the faculty member about the failure to meet performance expectations, the expected correction required to meet expectations in the future, and the probable consequence(s) for subsequent failure to meet performance expectations.
• Recommendations for training or professional development, which refer to official communication that suggests (but does not require) corrective actions for performance improvement.
• Formal performance improvement agreement (PIA), which refers to official communication that requires (rather than recommends) specific goals and mandates required corrective actions for performance improvement during a specified period. A PIA should be developed through mutual consent and signed by the faculty member, the department chair/ school director, the dean, and the provost. The PIA should specify the consequences for failure to complete it.
• Temporary or permanent suspension of specific duties in an assigned area of workload, which is official communication to temporarily or permanently suspend specific duties in which the faculty member has been assigned. Suspension of specific duties must be consistent with academic unit policies and communicated in writing. Suspension of specific duties cannot violate academic freedom.
• Temporary or permanent redistribution of workload assignments, which refers to official communication to temporarily or permanently decrease workload distributions in one area with a corresponding increase in another area. Workload distribution adjustments should be consistent with academic unit policies and must be communicated in writing.
• Written censure, which is official communication (typically titled as a 鈥淐ensure鈥�) that sharply criticizes and reprimands the faculty member for failing to meet expectations. A censure must also mandate immediate corrective action(s) and outline the consequences for failing to take them.
• Temporary or permanent reduction in full-time status (and corresponding salary), which refers to official communication to temporarily or permanently decrease the faculty member鈥檚 full-time equivalent status (e.g., 1.0 FTE to 0.8 FTE). Temporary or permanent reductions in FTE must be developed through mutual consent, communicated in writing, and signed by all parties.
• Initiation of for-cause termination, which refers to official communication to initiate formal loss of tenure and termination of appointment proceedings.

7. Appeals

A faculty member who disagrees with the outcomes of their post-tenure review may pursue the following appeals process.

Step 1: Written Appeal

The faculty member may submit a written appeal to the president within ten (10) business days of the final decision. Appeals shall be limited to 5 pages or fewer (single-spaced, 12-point font). Reasons for an appeal include violations of due process, inadequate consideration, or academic freedom. The faculty member should send a copy of their appeal to the department chair/school director, dean, and provost.

The president (or designee) will issue a written response within fifteen (15) business days following receipt of the appeal.

Step 2: Faculty Review Committee

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied, they may request a review by a Faculty Review Committee within ten (10) business days of the president鈥檚 written response.

The standing committee will be composed of at least seven full-time faculty members appointed by the provost (or designee). Members of the standing committee will be appointed annually by the provost (or designee). Members will be appointed for up to a three-year term. To the extent possible, the standing committee will include faculty from multiple colleges to ensure broad institutional representation.

The committee is expected to review the documents, recommendations, and final decision. At their discretion, the committee may request clarifications from the faculty member, chair/director, dean, provost, or president.

The committee is responsible for determining if there have been violations of due process, inadequate consideration, or academic freedom. If violations are identified, the committee is charged with recommending corrective actions to the president.

The committee must provide the president with recommendation(s) for corrective action within 20 business days of receiving the appeal. This recommendation is advisory.

Step 3: Final Decision

Informed by the Faculty Review Committee recommendation(s), the president is expected to issue a final written decision within fifteen (15) business days. The President鈥檚 decision on the appeal is final.

8. Recordkeeping

Post-tenure review documents are expected to be maintained in the faculty member鈥檚 official personnel file. Appeal-related records (including faculty statements, responses, and written decisions at each stage) should also be retained in the same file.

All records should be preserved in compliance with university and state public records requirements, with access limited to authorized administrators involved in employment, salary, or promotion decisions.

Revision History

March 2, 2026 鈥� Draft