The Formal TFR/AFR Review
The formal TFR/AFR review potentially consists of two stages.Stage one
In Stage One the faculty member is reviewed by a departmental TFR/AFR Committee.The TFR Committee is appointed by the Department chair and is composed of:
· Two (2) tenured and· One (1) untenured (tenure track) member of the faculty member's home department and
· One (1) faculty member from another department (tenured or untenured).
*At least one member must be of the same rank as the member being reviewed.
The AFR Committee is composed:
· Two (2) tenured members and· One full-time auxiliary track member and
· One faculty member from another department (tenure or auxiliary).
*At least one member must be of the same rank as the member being reviewed.
The members of the committee's may vary in each case within the department, allowing experts in each reviewee's field to be appointed.
If there are not sufficient faculty members in a department to form committee as required by the criteria, the chair may form a committee using faculty members from outside the department.
A Chair and a secretary for the TFR/AFR Committee shall be elected or appointed by the committee.
The departmental committee considers the faculty member's teaching evaluations (although no formal Student Advisory Committee (SAC) input will be solicited), grant support, CV, (letters need not be solicited at this stage), and compares accomplishments to the faculty member's goals and expectations as documented in the annual informal review documentation.
If the department TFR/AFR Committee determines that the faculty member has performed satisfactorily then the TFR/AFR does not proceed to stage two. AFR summaries are forwarded to the department chair for five year reappointment approval.
If the department TFR/AFR Committee is not able to determine that the faculty member has performed satisfactorily, then the review proceeds to stage two.
STAGE TWO:
Stage two applies if a faculty member has two consecutive unsatisfactory annual reviews by the department chair/division chief, or if the TFR/AFR Committee cannot determine that the faculty member has performed satisfactorily in a stage one five-year TFR/AFR.
The second stage review is more in depth than a first stage review.
- Review of teaching evaluations
- Grant support
- Formal input is sought from the departmental S(H)AC
- Evaluation letters are obtained
- Three (3) from inside the institution
- Three (3) from outside the institution).
- The faculty member is also encouraged to submit a personal statement defending her/his performance record when measured against her/his goals and expectations.
- AFR files are sent to DAC for annual reappointment vote.
The formal TFR/AFR process should produce one of three reasoned conclusions:
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement:
Specific recommendations for improvement are given to the department chair and the faculty member to consider in formulating the next year's goals and expectations.
Unsatisfactory:
This conclusion is appropriate if the faculty member fails to meet the responsibilities of a faculty member as outlined in the University's Policy and Procedures Manual 8-12.3 and 8-12.4
If a faculty member's performance is determined to be unsatisfactory, then the departmental TFR/AFR Committee should recommend to the department chair an appropriate sanction.
Sanctions for “Unsatisfactory or Needs Improvement”
After considering the faculty member's file and the discussion and recommendations of the departmental TFR/AFR Committee, the department chair will determine what sanctions to apply to the faculty member.
At a minimum the department chair will write a letter of expectations to the faculty member with a clear explanation of future consequences if the expectations are not met.
AFR findings will be provided to DAC during annual reappointment review process.
For significant violations of the Faculty Code the recommended sanction may be termination from the University.
Any sanction that falls short of termination from the University must be accompanied by a plan for improvement.
Appeal (TFR only):
The faculty member may appeal the evaluation and conclusion of the departmental TFR Committee and the sanctions imposed by the department Chair to the School of Medicine TFR Appeals Committee.
If a TFR results in a determination that a faculty member's performance has been unsatisfactory and sanctions are recommended, the Dean will decide whether the sanctions are appropriate and will take the steps necessary to enforce the sanctions for violating the faculty code.
Deadline for TFR/AFR Actions:
The results of all Required TFR/AFR evaluations must be submitted to the School of Medicine Faculty Affairs Office for review by the Dean before the last Monday of December.Additional Information
University of Utah Policy and Procedures Tenured Faculty Review Appendix A
* Policy and Procedures Manual 8-12.3
University of Utah Policy and Procedures Tenured Faculty Review Appendix B
* Policy and Procedures Manual 8-12.4
