FSH 3515 - Periodic Performance Review of Tenured Faculty 

Owner:

Last updated: July 2026

A. Purpose. FSH 3515 contains all official University periodic performance review (PPR) procedures and supersedes any PPR procedure contained in college or unit bylaws that conflicts with this policy.

B. Scope. This policy applies to all tenured faculty.

C. Definitions

C-1. Coordinator. The administrator tasked with coordinating the review process is typically the unit administrator. If the unit administrator is the reviewee, the coordinator role will fall to the dean. If a supervisor of the unit administrator is the reviewee, the review will be coordinated by the Vice Provost for Faculty.

C-2. Reviewee. The tenured faculty member whose performance is under consideration.

C-3. Tenure. Faculty tenure is defined in FSH 3500 A-3.

C-4. Unit. For purposes of this policy, “unit” is defined as in FSH 3500 A-1.e, and refers to the unit in which the reviewee holds a tenured position.

D. Policy

D-1. In general. The review must be conducted in terms of the tenured faculty member’s overall contributions to the unit and continuing performance of responsibilities as articulated in their position description. The review process is expected to be conducted with a spirit of fairness, integrity, and good faith.

D-2. Review period. The review is conducted at five-year intervals following the award of tenure, the reviewee’s most recent promotion, including promotion to Distinguished Professor, or the most recent review pursuant to FSH 3320-B-4, whichever is later. The review period shall be the five years preceding the PPR. In accordance with RGP II.G., there is an exception for associate professors in the promotion process. Generally, the promotion from the rank of associate professor to full professor is considered no earlier than the fifth full year after attaining the rank of associate professor, which is generally contemporaneous with the granting of tenure. In cases where a candidate submits an application for promotion from associate professor to professor rank in the same year that a PPR would otherwise be scheduled, the promotion review will fulfill the requirement for the PPR.

D-3. Satisfactory performance of tenured faculty. The basic standard for appraisal regarding the periodic performance review of tenured faculty shall be whether a reviewee satisfactorily performs the duties outlined in their position description and responsibility areas.

E. Procedure

E-1. Committee composition and selection

  1. Faculty without administrative appointments
    1. Composition. The PPR committee shall comprise three tenured faculty members from within the reviewee’s unit. In cases considering the review of full professors, the committee shall include at least one full professor. If there are not enough tenured faculty of rank in the unit, then faculty outside the unit, but within a closely related unit, may serve on the committee. Committee members are subject to the procedures for disclosure and recusal contained in FSH 3500 B-6. If there are not sufficient tenured faculty members of rank available to serve on the committee, the unit administrator shall designate appropriate faculty members from other units whose areas of expertise are as closely related as possible to the work of the candidate. One such member may chair the committee if there is not a tenured member from the unit available to serve as chair.
    2. Nominations. The reviewee may submit for consideration two tenured faculty members from within their unit to the coordinator or the reviewee may submit two qualified faculty outside of the unit if there are insufficient tenured faculty within the unit who can serve on the committee. The reviewee may also submit one faculty member who shall be excluded from serving on the committee.
    3. Appointment of members. The coordinator shall appoint the committee, including, if provided, one of the nominees from the reviewee’s list of nominees. The coordinator shall appoint qualified faculty outside the unit if there are insufficient tenured faculty within the unit. The committee members shall select a chair from their membership. When multiple faculty members in the same unit are up for review, the coordinator and the faculty members involved may determine whether a single committee can conduct all reviews or if separate committees should be formed for each individual review.
  2. Faculty with administrative appointments
    1. Composition. The PPR committee shall comprise three tenured faculty members, one of whom shall be from the faculty member’s unit, and one of whom shall be a tenured faculty member holding a commensurable administrative position. In the case of unique administrative positions (such as a provost, or vice president), an administrator or executive at the rank of Dean or above should be included. Committee members are subject to the procedures for disclosure and recusal contained in FSH 3500 B-6.
    2. Nominations. The reviewee may submit to the coordinator for consideration the name of two tenured faculty to serve on their committee which can include tenured faculty from within their unit or administrators with commensurable position; if there are not qualified faculty in the unit to serve on the committee, they may submit the name of a qualified faculty member from outside of the unit to serve. The reviewee may also submit one faculty member or administrator who shall be excluded from serving on the committee.
    3. Appointment of members. The coordinator shall appoint the committee, including, if provided, one of the nominees from the reviewee’s list of nominees. One of the committee members shall be an administrator with a commensurate administrative appointment. The committee members shall select a chair from their membership. The coordinator shall appoint qualified faculty outside the unit if there are insufficient tenured faculty within the unit.

E-2. Review materials. The review shall be limited to the materials described below.

  1. Materials submitted by reviewee.
    1. Mandatory: Updated curriculum vitae in U of I format.
    2. Optional: A self-evaluation of the reviewee’s achievements during the review period based on the position description which was established following FSH 3050 B. The self-evaluation shall be limited to three pages and must address responsibilities in the position description and the reviewee’s continued contribution to the unit where they hold tenure.
  2. Materials submitted by coordinator. The coordinator shall provide the following materials:
    1. Position descriptions for the review period.
    2. The official record, as maintained by the provost’s office, of annual evaluation materials for the review period, including any responses to annual evaluations submitted by the faculty member.
    3. If teaching is included in the reviewee’s position descriptions, copies of all the reviewee’s student course evaluation summaries as described in FSH 2700 D-2 for the period under review.
    4. If the previous PPR review required a formal performance plan for a tenured faculty member’s performance with their current position description, the reports and performance plan from the unit, unit administrator, dean, and provost shall be included in these materials.
  3. Clarification requests. The review committee may request clarification, including limited additional materials, from the reviewee or coordinator when necessary. However, such requests should be clearly warranted and limited in both scope and volume. In general, the materials outlined in sections E-2.a and E-2.b are expected to provide sufficient information for the review process.

E-3. Basis for evaluation. The review shall be based on the PPR review materials submitted as they pertain to the reviewee’s position descriptions and responsibilities for the review period.

E-4. Unit committee’s review and conclusion. After reviewing the reviewee's continuing performance in each of the responsibilities articulated in their position descriptions, the committee shall make a holistic assessment of the reviewee's performance as satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the period under review.

  1. If the committee determines the performance to be satisfactory, the committee chair shall sign the attestation form as satisfactory and forward it to the unit administrator.
  2. If the committee deems the performance unsatisfactory, they shall write a report detailing the problem areas in relation to the position description and responsibility areas.

E-5. Unit administrator’s review and conclusion. The unit administrator shall consider the report submitted by the unit committee in making a holistic determination as to whether the reviewee's performance has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the period under review.

  1. If the unit administrator deems the reviewee's performance satisfactory, they shall sign the attestation form as satisfactory.
  2. If the unit administrator deems the performance unsatisfactory, they shall write a report detailing the problem areas in relation to the position description responsibility areas for the period of review and will make a recommendation about the outcome of the review. If a faculty member receives at least four satisfactory annual evaluations during the period under review and the unit administrator’s decision of unsatisfactory is contrary to the unit committee’s decision, the unit administrator’s report under this section must explain the reasons the performance issues were not addressed during the relevant annual evaluations. This explanation is limited to one page.
  3. If the unit administrator disagrees with a finding of unsatisfactory performance by the unit committee, the unit administrator shall provide a report outlining how the reviewee meets expectations based on the position description and annual evaluation materials for the review period. The report shall be limited to three pages.
  4. The coordinator shall provide the unit level decision and, if applicable, the committee’s report and unit administrator’s report to the reviewee for review.

E-6. Faculty response. Upon receipt of the unit committee’s and unit administrator’s decisions and, if applicable, reports, the reviewee may submit a response within five business days to the coordinator. This response will be included in materials forwarded to the dean, if distinct from the unit administrator, coordinator, and reviewee. If the dean or another executive is the reviewee, the materials are forwarded to the Vice Provost for Faculty.

E-7. Forwarding to the dean. The coordinator shall submit the materials, unit reports and any responses provided by the reviewee to the dean, if distinct from the unit administrator, coordinator, and reviewee. If the dean is under review, the materials are forwarded to the Vice Provost for Faculty, who shall perform the duties assigned to the dean below. The dean shall consider the report submitted by the unit committee and the unit administrator in making a holistic determination as to whether the reviewee's performance has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

  1. If the dean deems the reviewee's performance satisfactory, they shall sign the attestation form as satisfactory.
  2. If the dean deems the performance unsatisfactory, they shall write a report detailing the problem areas in relation to the position description and responsibility areas, and will make a recommendation about the outcome of the review.
  3. If the dean disagrees with a finding of unsatisfactory performance by the unit committee or unit administrator, the dean shall provide a report outlining how the reviewee meets expectations based on the position description and annual evaluation materials for the review period. The report shall be limited to five pages.
  4. The dean shall provide the decision to the reviewee for review.

    The reviewee may respond within five working days of receipt. The dean shall forward the materials to the provost.
  5. All materials from the review and recommendations (committee, unit administrator, and dean) will be submitted to the Office of the Provost by April 1.

E-8. Final decision and outcomes.

  1. Satisfactory performance. If the unit committee, unit administrator, and dean find the reviewee's performance to be satisfactory, then the PPR is complete.
  2. Mixed review. If the review contains both satisfactory and unsatisfactory conclusions, then the provost shall review all of the materials and reports generated at the unit and college level and make the administrative decision of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
  3. Unsatisfactory performance. If the reviewee’s performance is found unsatisfactory or is found unsatisfactory per E-8 b, then one of the following outcomes will occur. The provost shall make the final administrative determination on which of these three outcomes will apply.
    1. Performance plan. In the event of an unsatisfactory PPR, the unit administrator must submit a proposal for a performance plan to the college dean. This will be a formal plan designed to realign the reviewee’s performance with their current position description. The performance plan is expected to be crafted in good faith with both unit administrator, if any, dean, and the reviewee. It shall include a commitment by the reviewee to improve and a commitment by the institution to provide adequate support toward that improvement. The dean shall approve the performance plan and submit it to the provost in writing for approval. If the unit administrator and dean, in consultation with the reviewee, cannot reach a reasonable agreement on a performance plan, all parties may seek a meeting (scheduled by the dean) with the Ombuds to discuss and amend the proposed performance plan. The dean shall submit it in writing to the provost. Once received by the provost, the faculty member must receive the approved plan to begin implementation. This process must be completed by May 15 of the academic year in which the review is conducted.
    2. Alternative resolutions. The reviewee may request alternative resolutions, which may be adopted in the discretion of the provost.
    3. Termination. The provost may recommend termination, as outlined in FSH 3910. The decision to terminate shall reside with the President, as outlined in FSH 3910.

E-9. Appeal by faculty member. Unsatisfactory performance determinations may be appealed per FSH 3840.

E-10. Timeline

  1. In general. By September 1 of the review year, the unit administrator shall provide written notification to each faculty member scheduled for review in the upcoming academic year. The faculty member may request an extension outlined in E-10-b. The PPR process will be conducted annually during the spring semester. The provost will communicate the review outcomes to the faculty member, unit administrator, and college dean before the end of the spring semester.
  2. Extensions
    1. Childbirth or adoption. A faculty member who becomes the parent of a child by birth or adoption, may request an automatic one-year extension of the timeline
    2. Other circumstances. An extension of the timeline may be granted in other exceptional circumstances (RGP II.G.6.d.iv.2) that may impede a faculty member’s progress toward achieving a satisfactory PPR, including but not limited to significant responsibilities with respect to elder or dependent care, child care, custody, disability or chronic illness, problems beyond the faculty member’s control relating to their research or scholarly activities, or such other reasons deemed by the provost to be exceptional and likely to impede the faculty member’s progress.
    3. Length of extension. In most cases, extension of the time shall be for one year; however, longer extensions may be granted upon a showing of need by the faculty member. Multiple extension requests may be granted.
    4. Option to shorten extension. A faculty member may choose to be considered for PPR on their original timeline, even if an extension has been granted.
    5. Procedure for requesting an extension
      1. The faculty member must request the extension from the provost in writing by the first week of the academic year in which the review process is scheduled to begin. The written request must include appropriate documentation of the childbirth, adoption, or other exceptional circumstance.
      2. Except to obtain necessary consultative assistance on medical or legal issues, only the provost shall have access to documentation pertaining to a request related to disability or chronic illness. The provost shall, in their discretion, determine if consultation with the dean or unit administrator is appropriate.
      3. The approval decision shall be made without regard to whether or not the faculty member takes a leave related to the same circumstances presented for the extension.
      4. The provost shall notify the faculty member, unit administrator, and dean of the action taken. The candidate may choose to provide information regarding the extension in their self-evaluation; otherwise, no information regarding the extension shall be included in the candidate’s dossier, unless such information already exists in the materials to be provided by the unit administrator. If such information already exists in the materials, the candidate may choose to have that information redacted. Committee and administrator reports shall not mention the extended timeline.
    6. Effect of extension. No additional productivity is expected when a faculty member extends the timeline for PPR. For example, if a decision would customarily take place in the fifth year, and it is extended to the sixth year, the standard of performance would remain the same as for a decision made in the fifth year.

F. Related Policies

Version History

July 2026. Policy inception. Interim Approval on July 17, 2026, for compliance with Idaho State Board of Education Policy II.G.