Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty

Accepted: May 12, 1989
Revisions Approved by the Faculty Senate and the Chancellor on December 5, 2023
Download a printable pdf of these guidelines.

Note: This version of the Guidelines should be used for annual evaluations beginning with the annual evaluation conducted in spring 2025 and for promotion and/or tenure considerations beginning with the 2024-2025 cycle. Prior to those dates, the previous version of the Guidelines should be used.

I. Introduction

The purpose of faculty evaluation is the facilitation of faculty success. The ability of a university to function and develop excellence depends both on the individual performance of each faculty member and on the collective performance of the faculty as a whole. Thus, the success and reputation of a university are highly dependent upon the talents that exist among its faculty and how effectively those talents are marshaled to accomplish the mission of the academy. To achieve and maintain high quality, a faculty evaluation system is essential. Properly administered, an evaluation system will encourage professional growth of individual faculty members, assure retention of those who demonstrate a high level of performance and accomplishment and permit appropriate recognition of achievement.

The work of faculty members is not easily described or measured. Because it is inherently judgmental, the evaluation of faculty must be informed by principles and procedures designed to protect academic freedom and to ensure accuracy, fairness, and equity. The purpose of this document is to outline broad principles and to establish the rigorous and common procedures necessary to maintain these qualities in the faculty evaluation process.

The application of evaluation policies and procedures, as well as the metrics used to inform evaluation, can create or reinforce disparities that disadvantage certain groups or individuals, particularly those who possess attributes that are underrepresented within the university and/or minoritized in society. These disparities may be perpetuated through factors such as unacknowledged and unchecked structural and cognitive biases, discrimination, and inequitable systems of privilege. Evaluators are expected to operate within an atmosphere of trust and respect, to be aware of inequities, and to implement strategies that facilitate acknowledgment and reflection of biases, values, attitudes, and behaviors and the effects these factors can have on performance evaluations. Faculty should be evaluated on multiple criteria to reduce the effects of bias. Unit-level procedures and standards should be designed to increase accuracy, fairness and equity in evaluation of faculty performance.

The Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR), colleges, departments, schools, and other administrative sub-units shall supplement these guidelines with more detailed descriptions and interpretations of the criteria and standards that, when approved, will apply to faculty members in the particular unit.

Return to Table of Contents

II. Faculty Role in the University Mission

The mission of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been defined by State statutes and Board of Regents policy¹. UNL is Nebraska's only comprehensive, doctoral degree granting university and is its land-grant institution. The Role and Mission statement approved by the Board of Regents adopts a functional tripartite approach to the university's mission: "Our vision, as a land-grant, comprehensive university, is to place the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the forefront of public higher education—to excel at all of our missions of teaching, research, and engagement. In doing so, we will attain national and international fame, while always serving the needs of all Nebraskans."²

Accomplishing the University's mission requires a creative, collective intermingling of individual faculty talents. Consequently, each individual faculty member likely will have a unique role in the institution and a special assignment in terms of the focus and distribution of effort among instructional, research, and service responsibilities. The evaluation criteria and processes must accommodate such differences. A list of faculty titles is available at https://executivevc.unl.edu/faculty/searches-appointments/appointments-templates.

Return to Table of Contents

III. General Principles of Faculty Evaluation: Process, Criteria and Standards

III.A. The Faculty Evaluation Process

The faculty evaluation process has five distinct components: annual evaluation, reappointment, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review. These are summarized in this section and more details are provided in Sections IV-VIII below. 

III.A.1. Annual Evaluation

It is the policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska that all faculty be evaluated annually. The evaluation must be documented and must be informed by "relevant information from all sources, including student evaluations and peer judgments," and materials submitted by the faculty member (see Regents Bylaws 4.6). If at all possible, multiple measures of each criterion should be used to reduce bias and ensure equity.

The annual evaluation provides an opportunity to assess the progress of a faculty member's performance and to coach the faculty member in the development of goals and objectives related to future accomplishments and contributions. It forms the basis for annual merit salary raises, when available, and other rewards. Cumulatively, annual evaluations establish a continuous written record of performance (i.e., quality and quantity of work) and work assignment expectations (i.e., apportionment and assignments within the apportionment areas).  The annual evaluation process is intended to help develop the best match between the faculty member's expertise and the institutional mission. Done well, annual evaluation encourages professional growth and provides guidance for promotion, tenure and other recognition.  Evaluators should remember that the responsibility for evaluation is held jointly by the faculty member, supervisor, and review committee (if applicable) and all need to be actively involved. All participants need to learn how to document accomplishments of faculty members and engage in effective evaluation conversation.

III.A.2. Evaluation for Reappointment/Non-Reappointment

Procedures for reappointment and non-reappointment apply to pre-tenure faculty members, professors of practice, and research faculty as defined in the Bylaws of the Board of Regents. Contracts for these faculty members specify that they hold "appointments for a specific term," "faculty practice appointments," or "faculty research appointments" respectively. Reappointment evaluation may or may not occur at the same time as the annual evaluation and must follow the deadlines established by the Board of Regents. If the recommendation of the responsible official is against reappointment, and that recommendation is inconsistent with the candidate's previous annual evaluations, that official shall, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.

III.A.3. Evaluation for Promotion and/or Tenure

Promotion in rank is a visible way to recognize exemplary performance of a faculty member. The promotion evaluation provides the opportunity to assess a faculty member's accomplishments, impacts and other aspects of performance since initial appointment or since the last promotion. The process is necessary to determine when promotion to a specific academic rank is warranted.

Prior to the award of a Continuous Appointment (tenure), probationary faculty (i.e., faculty members who hold, in the language of the Board of Regents, an "appointment for a specific term") undergo a particularly rigorous evaluation involving an assessment of accumulated accomplishments and a determination of whether the performance is likely to meet expectations for the indefinite future.

For both promotion and tenure, the evaluation process is a shared responsibility exercised by different persons in the various administrative units of the University. Primary responsibility for the conduct, quality, and presentation of an individual's work lies with the faculty member. The faculty member prepares a documentation file, according to university and unit level guidelines, that documents their work, accomplishments, and impacts. It is the obligation of the responsible administrator to advise candidates as to the form and substance of this documentation file.

Evaluation of an individual's academic accomplishments begins with review of the documentation file by departmental or collegiate peers, who make a recommendation to the responsible administrator. The responsible administrator then considers all the available evidence, including the peer recommendation, to make their own independent recommendation on tenure and/or promotion. Subsequent levels of independent review are conducted by peers (as appropriate), deans (as appropriate), and the appropriate Vice Chancellor and Chancellor. These latter levels of review are conducted to uphold institutional goals of academic excellence and seek to assure fairness and integrity in the application of appropriate standards and procedures among departments and colleges.

III.A.4. Evaluation for Post-Tenure Review

Post-tenure review is appropriate to ensure standards of performance continue to be achieved by faculty members with continuous appointments (tenure). Post-tenure review is different than annual evaluation; all faculty members must be evaluated annually regardless of rank while only those tenured faculty members with chronic unsatisfactory performance undergo post-tenure review. When chronic deficiencies are identified in the annual evaluations of tenured faculty during consecutive annual reviews, then it may be appropriate to conduct a post-tenure review. The purpose of such a review is to develop a plan for improving performance. In the event that performance does not improve to meet expected standards, termination procedures, as described in the Bylaws of the Board of Regents, may be initiated. While completion of a post-tenure review is the preferred practice before termination is pursued based on lack of professional competence, it is not a legal prerequisite for instituting such termination procedures.

III.B. Criteria

The University's fundamental criterion for faculty evaluation is that all faculty members must do scholarly or professional work that demonstrates excellence. Faculty members are hired to accomplish objectives of specific academic units. Consequently, the evaluation of faculty is to be carried out in the context of each faculty member's particular role in the institution and with a clear understanding of what is expected of the individual. The faculty member's role and expected outcomes should be clearly identified in the letter of appointment, position description and/or addenda to the same. Accomplishments of the faculty member are judged against these expectations.

Individuals will be evaluated according to norms established for them related to the faculty's collective responsibility for advancing knowledge through teaching, research, creative activity, extension, service and administration. Evaluations should consider the faculty member's contributions in the context of institution- and subunit-level values, goals and priorities, such as inclusive excellence, contributions to teams, and community and global engagement. Particular faculty members will vary in the extent to which their responsibilities emphasize one or more of the University's identified apportionment areas of teaching, extension, service, research, and administration. Criteria against which individual faculty members are judged must reflect these varying assignments.

The University official responsible for hiring shall, in the approved letter of appointment and/or position description, spell out the general apportionment of the faculty member's major responsibilities. The apportionment is to be reviewed during the annual evaluation, or at other times as appropriate, and may be changed by mutual consent or as otherwise described in Section 4.3 of the Board of Regents Bylaws. While the details of a faculty member's specific assignments and expected outcomes should be subject to joint consultation, they are to be determined by the responsible administrator (e.g., department chair, unit administrator, director). (Regents Bylaws, 3.4.4).

Each unit shall refine these broad criteria in the apportionment areas of teaching, research, service, extension, and administration in ways that reflect the discipline and its mission. The refined criteria shall be applied in ways which equitably reflect each faculty member's particular responsibilities and assignments.

Adjustments in the expectations for faculty members may occur over time in keeping with changing institutional and personal priorities. Such adjustments shall occur in a timely fashion and with reasonable effort made to assure mutual understanding. It must be clear, however, that no special adjustments of norms for units or individuals shall alter the University's fundamental criterion: all faculty members must do scholarly or professional work that demonstrates creative achievement.

III.C. Standards

Qualitative evaluation of faculty, while highly subjective, is the essence of the faculty evaluation process. The single common standard by which to judge the extent of achievement is that of excellence—excellence in creativity and in significance of contribution. Although specifics as to what constitutes excellence in particular cases are necessarily a matter of judgment that varies from discipline to discipline, faculty members must be given reasonable assistance to understand the components of that judgment and the process by which the judgment is determined.

Return to Table of Contents

IV. Annual Evaluations

IV.A. General Description

Consistent with Regents Bylaws 4.6, the performance of individual faculty members is evaluated annually throughout their career at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The primary purpose of these annual evaluations is to assist individual faculty members in developing their talents and expertise to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the role and mission of the University. These evaluations provide faculty members with a written record of continuing expectations and accomplishments, an ongoing critique of strengths and weaknesses, and documentation that supports the annual distribution of performance-based salary adjustments and other rewards. The specific nature of a faculty member's annual evaluation may vary, however, in accord with that person's type of appointment, rank, and, where appropriate, tenure status.

IV.B. Specific Applications

IV.B.1. Probationary Faculty

Probationary faculty are those who are on the tenure track but not yet tenured, i.e., those who are on an "appointment for a specific term" in the language of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents. For these persons, the annual evaluation develops information concerning the faculty member's progress toward tenure³. The annual evaluation communicates areas of progress and strength, and alerts the faculty member to performance deficiencies at the earliest possible time. The official responsible for the evaluation must consult annually with the appropriate group of tenured faculty to discuss the performance of the faculty member being evaluated. Any concerns held by the responsible official or the participating faculty regarding the faculty member's performance should be clearly stated in the written evaluation. The review will make specific recommendations for self-improvement and professional development which will enhance the faculty member's chances of eventually achieving promotion and tenure.

The absence of negative evaluations does not guarantee the granting of tenure, but annual evaluations should apprise probationary faculty members of performance deficiencies in time for them to take corrective action. The annual evaluation also provides the opportunity to develop changes in responsibilities that reflect the strengths of the individual and the needs of the University. See also the section on reappointment below.

Occasionally, these evaluations will result in termination and, where appropriate, terminal contracts; in these cases, notice shall be given in accord with Regents Bylaws 4.4.2. If the recommendation of the responsible official is for termination, and that recommendation is inconsistent with the candidate's previous annual evaluations, that official shall, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.

IV.B.2. Tenured, Not Fully Promoted

The annual evaluation of faculty who are tenured but not fully promoted to the rank of professor (commonly referred to as "full professor") will generally emphasize quantitative and qualitative progress toward rank advancement. Not all faculty will attain the rank of professor but annual evaluations should continue to aid faculty in achieving that distinction. The annual review will make specific recommendations for self-improvement and professional development which will enhance the faculty member's chances of eventually achieving promotion.

The absence of negative evaluations does not guarantee promotion, but annual evaluations should apprise faculty members of performance deficiencies so they can take corrective action. The annual evaluation also provides the opportunity to develop changes in responsibilities that reflect the strengths of the individual and the needs of the University.

The official responsible for the evaluation of a tenured but not fully promoted faculty member must consult at least once every three years with the appropriate body of fully promoted faculty, or a designated subset of the same, to provide advice to the faculty member regarding their progress toward promotion. This consultation may or may not occur at the same time as the annual evaluation; the unit will determine, through written guidelines, the frequency and timing of this consultation.

IV.B.3. Tenured, Fully Promoted

The primary purpose of evaluating professors is to indicate how they are performing in relation to proper expectations, an important factor in performance-based salary adjustments. The annual evaluation process is also used to encourage faculty members to continue to perform at exemplary levels and as an opportunity to develop changes in responsibilities that reflect the strengths of the individual and the needs of the University.

IV.B.4. Specialized Faculty, Not Fully Promoted

Specialized faculty positions are positions for which promotion is possible and that have, by policy, a high minimum apportionment in a particular apportionment category. This classification includes various titles, including Assistant/Associate/Full Professors of Practice, Research Assistant/Associate/Full Professors, Assistant/Associate/Full Extension Professors, Assistant/Associate/Full Extension Educators, Assistant/Associate/Full Geoscientists, and Assistant/Associate/Full Foresters.

Evaluation of specialized faculty may emphasize different criteria from those applied to other faculty. Annual evaluations will focus primarily on strengths and weaknesses, on the best use of a person's talents to meet the unit's needs, and on specific recommendations for improvement and professional development. Annual evaluations for specialized faculty who are not fully promoted will generally include feedback on the quantitative and qualitative progress toward the rank immediately above that currently held. Not all faculty will attain the rank equivalent to professor, but annual evaluations should assist people toward that long-term goal. Evaluations may lead to adjustment of duties and, occasionally, will lead to a non-reappointment decision.

The official responsible for the evaluation of the specialized faculty who is not fully promoted must consult at least once every three years with the appropriate body of fully promoted faculty, or a designated subset of the same, to provide advice to the faculty member regarding their progress toward promotion. This consultation may or may not occur at the same time as the annual evaluation.

IV.B.5. Specialized Faculty, Fully Promoted

The primary purpose of evaluating fully promoted specialized faculty members is to determine how well they are performing in relation to proper expectations, an important factor in performance-based salary adjustments. The annual evaluation process is also used to encourage fully promoted faculty members to continue to perform at exemplary levels.

IV.B.6. Other Faculty

This category of faculty who are neither probationary, tenured, nor specialized includes Lecturers, Lecturer-Ts, and Postdoctoral Associates. While the primary purpose of evaluating such faculty members is to determine how well they are performing in relation to proper expectations, it is also crucial that the annual evaluation process be formative.

IV.C. Mandatory Procedures

All administrative units are required to follow these procedures for the annual evaluation process.

1. Individual academic units shall maintain formal and informal mechanisms for communicating to faculty, particularly new faculty members, what constitutes scholarly and professional work that demonstrates creative achievement and that meets the disciplinary standards of excellence in creativity and significance.
2. At an appropriate time, the department chair/head will ask each faculty member to submit a written record of activities during the previous calendar year directly to the supervising administrator, usually a chair/head, unit administrator, or dean.
3. In the case of probationary (untenured but tenure track) assistant professors, the supervising administrator must consult annually with the appropriate group of tenured faculty members to discuss the performance of the faculty member being evaluated.
4. The written evaluations of probationary and of not fully-promoted faculty members should clearly indicate concerns the evaluating administrator or faculty has regarding the faculty member's performance. Faculty members should be apprised, through the annual evaluations of performance, of deficiencies in time for them to take corrective action. The review will make recommendations for self-improvement and professional development which will enhance the faculty member's chances of eventually achieving tenure and/or promotion.
5. Required peer feedback on progress toward reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure may or may not be part of the annual evaluation process.
6. A written evaluation of the faculty member's performance must be prepared by the supervising administrator. Where consultation with other faculty is required as part of the evaluation process, the written evaluation must incorporate these faculty views. Prior to finalization of the supervisor's written evaluation, the affected faculty member will be given an opportunity to meet with the supervising administrator to discuss the faculty member's performance.
7. The final written evaluation must be shared with the faculty member and the faculty member must be invited to sign the document indicating that the person has seen it. The faculty member's signature does not imply concurrence with the contents.
8. If the evaluation is disputed, and the dispute is not resolved, the affected faculty member has the right to submit a written statement of rebuttal that becomes part of the evaluation.
9. Copies of the written evaluation, and the faculty member's rebuttal if appropriate, must be provided to the faculty member, and to the appropriate dean and vice chancellor.
10. As detailed in Section 2.9.8 of the UNL Bylaws, the faculty member has the right to access and respond to all material, including recommendations, synopses of discussions and the outcome of any vote used in annual evaluation. The faculty member also has the right to know the identity of anyone who reviews these materials.
11. Given an unfavorable review, a faculty member has the right to request and receive reconsideration at the departmental level and appeal to the college, in addition to any rights granted under the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee (ARRC) of the Faculty Senate.

Return to Table of Contents

V. Evaluations for Reappointment/Non-Reappointment

V.A. General Description

Procedures for reappointment and non-reappointment apply to probationary faculty members, professors of practice, extension professors, and research faculty as defined in the Bylaws of the Board of Regents. Contracts for these faculty members specify that they hold "appointments for a specific term," "faculty practice appointments," or "faculty research appointments." Reappointment evaluation may or may not occur at the same time as the annual evaluation and must follow the deadlines established by the Board of Regents.

Any decision not to reappoint a faculty member of the type listed above should be informed by a vote of an appropriate group of faculty. This might be the tenured faculty in the department, the departmental promotion and tenure committee, or some other group empowered through unit governance documents to participate in personnel decisions. More information is provided here: https://executivevc.unl.edu/faculty/searches-appointments/non-reappointment

V.B. Mandatory Procedures

1. Before making a final decision not to reappoint a faculty member of the type listed above, the dean must discuss reasons for non-reappointment with the associate vice chancellor for faculty affairs in the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor, or the associate vice chancellor in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
2. Faculty members must be informed that they are not being reappointed via a letter, signed by the direct supervisor (usually the department chair/head or school director), with copies to other supervisors (usually the dean and the executive vice chancellor/IANR vice chancellor), and sent to the faculty member via a method that shows receipt (e.g., letter sent to home address via certified mail or a DocuSign process that includes signature by the faculty member).
3. Upon receipt of the non-reappointment letter, the faculty member shall have the opportunity under Section 4.9 of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents to "request a reconsideration by any individual or group making a recommendation or decision not to renew the appointment and to offer evidence for that reconsideration" and to file a grievance over that decision with the ARRC.
4. The Bylaws of the Board of Regents specify deadlines by which a faculty member must be notified that they are not being reappointed. For pre-tenure faculty members, the deadlines depend on the length of time the faculty member has been employed at the university. For professors of practice, extension professors, and research faculty, the deadlines depend on the length of the contract. If appropriate notice is not given, then the contract is automatically extended for an additional year.

Return to Table of Contents

VI. Promotion in Rank

VI.A. General Description

Promotions to higher rank are benchmarks in the process of faculty development and recognition. Initial recommendations for promotion are made by peers and administrators at the departmental level. Further reviews take place at the college or IANR, and campus levels. The campus decision is forwarded to the Board of Regents for information purposes.

The processes leading to promotion and those leading to tenure are distinct and should not be conflated. Promotion in rank primarily reflects a personal level of achievement. The granting of tenure reflects a personal level of achievement and involves an expectation and prediction as to future development and performance and a decision by the institution to make a long-term commitment to the individual, subject to the Bylaws of the Board of Regents.

The campus guidelines that follow contain general criteria and procedures for promotion to specific ranks. Departments, schools, colleges, and the IANR shall provide further definition and clarification of the criteria and procedures that reflect the unique missions of individual units. Department and school guidelines must be approved by the appropriate college; college guidelines must be approved by the appropriate vice chancellor. Once appropriately approved, these additional guidelines direct the promotion process and performance expectations within the unit.

A candidate for promotion cannot assume that merely meeting minimal quantitative criteria (e.g., number of publications, courses taught, extension programs delivered) is automatically sufficient for promotion. Promotion decisions are based on a holistic evaluation of a candidate's entire record and the cumulative impact of the person's contributions to the administrative unit, the university and the field.

Although it is the objective of the University to have all eligible faculty members who are sufficiently qualified to eventually gain promotion to the rank of professor, no time limitations impel a faculty member to seek the highest academic rank in the University. Associate professors with tenure may stay in that rank for the duration of their careers. Similarly, specialized faculty may stay at the rank of assistant or associate without prejudice.

VI.B. Criteria for Promotion to Specific Rank

VI.B.1. Instructor-NTT

The rank of "instructor-NTT" is used for persons who, at the time of hire, have not completed required terminal degrees or who lack other specific qualifications. In these cases, the criteria for promotion from instructor are agreed upon at the time of hiring and are given in the letter of offer. Time spent in this rank does not count toward tenure and/or promotion.

VI.B.2. Assistant Professor (including both tenure track and specialized, e.g., Assistant Professor of Practice, etc.)

Qualifications for the rank of assistant professor include completion of a terminal degree or equivalent experience in the practice of the discipline. The letter of appointment will designate assistant professors as tenure track or as one of the specialized tracks. In the period between appointment as an assistant professor and promotion to associate professor, terms expressed in the letter of offer, in the position description, in the annual evaluations, and in reappointment or contract renewal reviews provide guidance regarding professional development to the faculty member and to peers and administrators charged with judging progress toward promotion.

VI.B.3. Associate Professor (including both tenure track and specialized)

To attain the rank of associate professor, the candidate should be an accomplished teacher, where teaching is an assigned responsibility, and have a significant record of scholarly and creative work in teaching, research, and service in keeping with the individual's job responsibilities.

In all but unusual circumstances, promotion of tenure-eligible faculty members to the rank of associate professor takes place at the same time as the tenure decision. However, since the decision regarding tenure is based upon broader criteria, the two actions take place separately and require separate decisions. It is assumed that a faculty member who has earned tenure should also have earned promotion to associate professor, but promotion in rank carries no guarantee regarding granting of tenure.

VI.B.4. Professor (including both tenure track and specialized)

The rank of professor is the highest academic rank in the University. The rank of professor is reserved for those faculty members whose achievements are sufficient to merit recognition as distinguished authorities in their field. To attain the rank of professor, most phases of the candidate's work must be judged excellent, evidencing a level of sustained creativity in the salient areas of the candidate's work. Such creativity is of the sort that would merit national recognition in appropriate arenas. That does not mean that the subject of the work must be of national character or scope. The subject may well be regional or local, but the quality of the work should be sufficient to merit significant recognition.

Peers and administrators evaluating a candidate for professor should review documentation of the entire academic career to date. The record of a successful candidate for professor must show evidence of sustained excellence over an extended period of time.

VI.C. Mandatory Procedures

See Section VIII below.

Return to Table of Contents

VII. Evaluation for Continuous Appointment

VII.A. General Description

The award of a Continuous Appointment (tenure) is a long-term commitment by the institution to the individual faculty member, subject to the Bylaws of the Board of Regents, and therefore, requires a rigorous, in-depth assessment of the faculty member's accumulated accomplishments and a determination of whether the performance is likely to meet expectations for the indefinite future. The award of tenure requires the candidate to demonstrate that such a commitment by the University is justified. The tenure decision ultimately is based on an evaluation of the quality and quantity of work accomplished during the probationary period and is an expectation and prediction of the quality and quantity of a faculty member's future performance.

In some instances, deficiencies may not be fully apparent until near the end of the probationary period, especially in the area of scholarly activity. In situations where there has been a mutually agreed upon change in responsibilities, the quality of performance in the new area of focus may not be capable of full judgment until that time. Changes in University priorities may dictate a higher minimum standard of performance than existed when the faculty member was hired initially. Adjustments in standards or responsibilities, however, must not dramatically change in ways that make it impossible for the able and responsible candidate to meet them.

Tenure recommendations should not be confused with annual evaluations nor with promotion considerations. Annual evaluations for probationary faculty members prior to the tenure consideration focus primarily on suitability for reappointment, and an assessment of progress toward tenure. Consequently, it should be clear that positive annual evaluations which are satisfactory for annual reappointment may not be cumulatively sufficient for tenure. Similarly, promotion primarily reflects a level of personal achievement; although it is to be regarded as positive recognition of one's work, it cannot be taken as a guarantee of tenure.

VII.B. Eligibility

Only faculty members designated as having a Specific Term Appointment, pursuant to Regents Bylaws, 4.3 and 4.4.2, are eligible for consideration for a Continuous Appointment (tenure). The foregoing shall not be construed to limit the authority of the Board of Regents to grant Continuous Appointment to a faculty member at the time of employment.

Return to Table of Contents

VIII. Mandatory Procedures for Evaluation for Promotion and/or Tenure

Evaluation for Promotion and for Tenure require separate decisions but are in most cases conducted simultaneously. Procedures for promotion and/or tenure are established by the Board of Regents Bylaws and by academic tradition. All academic units are required to follow procedures outlined below in implementing the promotion and/or tenure process. Subject to approval by the appropriate college and campus officials, colleges, departments and schools may adopt additional procedures which will accommodate needs appropriate to their specific missions and disciplines.

For faculty members in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources the term "college" will connote "Institute", since the IANR deans and directors as a group evaluate personnel recommendations.

VIII.A. The Tenure Notification Date

1. At the time the faculty member is proposed for initial appointment to a Specific Term position, the tenure notification date is established in the contract. The contract specifies any credit given to the person as a result of previous experience.
   
   A faculty member with extensive academic experience may be offered a Continuous Appointment at the time of hiring, if the department and the college decide to do so and the appropriate vice chancellor approves.
2. The tenure evaluation process must be initiated in time to be concluded prior to the tenure notification date specified in the contract. For a new faculty member without credit for prior experience, the tenure review process would normally begin at the end of the fifth year of appointment, with a decision made by the following May of that academic year. Notice of award of tenure or termination shall be in accord with Regents Bylaws, 4.4.2.
   
   For the truly exceptional candidate, award of tenure may be considered prior to the mandatory time. Early tenure implies that a candidate has, in the shorter time period, built and sustained a record of high-level performance equaling or surpassing that expected over the normal probationary period. As is the case for all tenure candidates, that record must also justify an expectation and prediction of the quality and quantity of a faculty member's future performance. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of these mandatory procedures for the tenure evaluation process, any person who is being considered for award of early tenure may, at his or her discretion, elect to withdraw from the tenure evaluation process. Failure to be awarded tenure after early nomination shall not prejudice later consideration.
   
   No person may be considered for tenure without his or her consent. Refusal to be considered at the mandatory time, however, is equivalent to resignation no later than at the end of the probationary period.

VIII.B. Nominations for Promotion

Nominations for promotion may be made at the appropriate time by any member of the faculty, including the candidate. No person, however, may be nominated without his or her consent. Nominations are submitted to the department chair/head, school director, or unit administrator, or to the college dean, depending on the unit involved. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of these mandatory procedures for the promotion evaluation process, any person who is being considered for an award of promotion may, at his or her discretion, elect to withdraw from the promotion evaluation process at any stage and without prejudicing later consideration.

VIII.C. Conducting the Review

1. Departmental and college deadlines for promotion and/or tenure evaluations are adjusted annually, based upon the campus deadlines established by the appropriate vice chancellor. The department and college deadlines must provide adequate opportunity for due process in the consideration of an applicant's nomination, for candidate response, and time for reconsideration of adverse recommendations.
2. Candidates are responsible for preparing the Candidate Section and Appendices of the documentation file to support their nominations. It is the obligation of department chairs/heads, school directors, unit administrators, and deans to advise candidates as to the form and substance of a documentation file. It is also the administrator's responsibility to ensure that the required elements of the Administrative Section of the file are included. The recommendations from each review (e.g., external peer review, Promotion and Tenure Committee, unit administrator, dean) become a part of the Administrative Section of the file. The only anonymous materials that can be included in the files are student evaluations, which are routinely solicited from all students enrolled in courses taught by the faculty member according to departmental or college procedures. If additional student evaluations are desirable, the process for gathering these evaluations must be described in writing and become part of the record. Documentation should be organized to comply with instructions from the vice chancellor responsible for the administrative unit.
   
   The content of a documentation file, and the emphasis to be given to various components of the file, may vary from discipline to discipline. Except as provided in the following section, the candidate is entitled to access all materials in the file. The candidate is also entitled to know the identity of everyone who reviews the file. Anyone with relevant information for inclusion in the file may proffer that information at any level of consideration to the person responsible for conducting the review. That person shall determine, after consultation with the candidate, whether to include the material. The candidate must be informed of the content and source of any substantive new evidence to be added to the existing file. The candidate has a right to review, object to, and respond in writing to any such added material with the response becoming a part of the documentation file prior to any further consideration.
3. Units shall develop rules for solicitation of outside reviews as part of the promotion process that are consistent with this section. The faculty member is entitled to know how, and by whom, the panel of potential reviewers is to be identified and selected. Every reasonable effort must be made to assure that the external reviewers represent an appropriate subset of peers; a candidate shall have the opportunity to propose names to the panel and to object to the inclusion of others, but the final identification of the reviewers remains the responsibility of the person charged with conducting the review. The faculty member also has the right, unless waived, to have a copy of any review received and to append a written response to each copy of the review that is to be used for evaluation purposes.
   
   A candidate may waive the right to access outside reviews and/or the right to know the identity of outside reviewers. Such waivers shall not be assumed, implied or coerced, and must be executed in writing prior to solicitation of outside reviews. The scope of the waiver shall be clearly indicated in writing prior to solicitation of outside reviews. A copy of any waiver executed by a faculty member shall become a part of the file. Any letter soliciting an outside review shall inform the potential reviewer of the extent to which the contents of the review or the identity of the reviewer will be known to the candidate.
   
   In soliciting outside reviews, the University expresses its confidence in the professionalism of those whose judgments are sought. Peers and administrators must assess and weigh the content of outside reviews within the context in which they were provided, a context that includes the extent to which those reviews are confidential. A review may not, however, be routinely or automatically discounted simply because a candidate chooses not to waive the right to access the reviews or the right to know the identity of the reviewers.
4. A candidate may request a colleague to assist in preparing appropriate documentation. Both the candidate and the adviser should be aware of the potential conflict of interest that may arise should the adviser be required to vote on the nomination later in the process. An agreement to provide counsel and advice to a candidate does not imply a commitment to support the candidate's nomination.
5. The candidate's documentation file is first considered at the department level by a committee of colleagues.
   1. For promotion reviews, the committee shall be composed of the faculty members in the candidate's academic unit who hold the rank equal to or higher than that to which a candidate aspires, or an elected subset of this group.
   2. For tenure reviews, the committee shall be composed of the faculty members in the candidate's academic unit who are tenured, or an elected subset of this group.
   For appointments involving more than one academic unit, or where the responsibilities of the individual reside in several areas, the appropriate peer evaluation committee shall consist of colleagues who, by virtue of rank, credentials, and experience, are able to make informed judgments about the candidate. The representational composition of such a committee must be established at the time of appointment or reapportionment of responsibilities.
   
   Each department shall, by its rules, determine the role of chair/head or the unit administrator in the committee deliberations, but that person shall not vote with the committee. Under all circumstances, the chair/head or unit administrator shall have the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss its recommendations.
6. The discussion at all meetings should be free, candid, and confidential and shall be based on material in the file. New material of such a substantive nature as to influence or affect the decision shall not be introduced at any meeting unless the candidate is to be given an opportunity to respond. It is the responsibility of the individual conducting the meeting to make the necessary judgments concerning the substantive nature of any new material, to convey new information to the person being evaluated and, if necessary, to delay the discussion, vote or decision until the person has had the opportunity to respond. However, the process must be completed so as to comply with submission deadlines to the next level of consideration.
7. After thorough deliberation, committee members vote to determine the committee's recommendation. The vote may be by anonymous ballot.
8. The recommendation must be documented in the documentation file and transmitted in writing to the candidate. The documentation (usually in the form of a letter or college-approved standard form) must include the vote of the faculty, a synopsis of the discussion, and a statement that the candidate has of the right to request reconsideration of the decision as provided in Regents Bylaws, 4.9(a).
9. If at any point in the process, the candidate is not recommended for either the promotion or tenure status being sought by either the appropriate faculty committee or the responsible administrator, the candidate may request reasons for the adverse recommendation, in writing if desired. The candidate also must be informed of the right to request reconsideration of the decision as provided in Regents Bylaws, 4.9(a). No negative recommendation shall be forwarded for the next level of review until the reconsideration is complete. The department or college shall establish time-lines for the candidate to request a statement of reasons, reconsideration of a decision, and the submission of additional materials to inform the reconsideration. If the candidate requests a statement of reasons or requests reconsideration of a decision within these time-lines, such request shall be granted as expeditiously as possible. Departments and colleges must schedule the review process so that any reconsideration shall be completed in time to meet established submission deadlines to the next level of consideration. The purpose of the statement of reasons is to give an unsuccessful candidate an opportunity to prepare a rebuttal argument. In order to allow the opportunity to respond, the candidate must be given the opportunity to review the file.
10. Following the completion of deliberations by the faculty committee, including any reconsideration of an initial decision, the department chair/head, school director or unit administrator reviews the entire record and makes an independent recommendation. The recommendation must be documented in the documentation file and transmitted in writing to the candidate. The chair/head, director or unit leader notifies the committee of their recommendation on the documentation file. If the chair/head, school director or unit administrator recommends against the promotion and/or tenure status being sought, the candidate must be informed of the ability to obtain reasons and request reconsideration as described in Section VIII.C.9. If the negative recommendation is inconsistent with previous annual evaluations, the administrator must, as part of the recommendation, submit a written explanation of the inconsistency.
11. At the college level, a committee of faculty reviews the documentation file and makes a recommendation to the dean. Usually, chairs/heads or unit administrators will not be members of the college committee. For the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the IANR deans and directors will constitute this review committee.
    
    Each college shall, by its rules, determine the role of the dean in committee deliberations, but that person shall not vote. Under all circumstances, the dean shall have the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss its recommendation. The discussion at all meetings should be free, candid, and confidential. It shall be based on material in the file. New material of such a substantive nature as to influence or affect the decision shall not be introduced at any meeting unless the candidate is to be given an opportunity to respond. It is the responsibility of the individual conducting the meeting to make the necessary judgments concerning the substantive nature of any new material, to convey new information to the person being evaluated and, if necessary, to delay the discussion and vote or decisions until the person has had the opportunity to respond. However, the process must be completed so as to comply with submission deadlines to the next level of consideration.
    
    The committee members vote to determine the collective recommendation of the committee. The vote may be by anonymous ballot. The recommendation must be documented in the documentation file and transmitted in writing to the candidate. The documentation (usually in the form of a letter or college-approved standard form) must include the vote of the college faculty committee, including a synopsis of the discussion, reasons for the recommendation and a statement that the candidate has of the right to request reconsideration of the decision as provided in Regents Bylaws, 4.9(a).
    
    The purpose of the review committee at the college level is to ensure that proper standards are being applied by the department and that the standards have been appropriately applied to the candidate. It should also make a recommendation in support of or against tenure and/or promotion. If the college faculty committee recommends against tenure and/or promotion, the candidate must be informed of the ability to obtain reasons and request reconsideration as described in Section VIII.C.9.
12. Following the completion of deliberations by the college faculty committee, including any reconsideration of its initial decision, the dean reviews the entire record to ensure that proper standards are being applied by the college and that they have been appropriately applied to the candidate. Based on this review, the dean makes an independent recommendation. That recommendation must be documented in the documentation file and transmitted in writing to the candidate with copy to the department chair/head or unit administrator. If the dean recommends against the promotion and/or tenure status being sought, the candidate must be informed of the ability to obtain reasons and request reconsideration as described in Section VIII.C.9.
    1. In the case of promotion evaluations, if either the decision of the college committee or the decision of the dean is to recommend promotion, the documentation file must be transmitted to the appropriate vice chancellor for consideration. If, however, the college committee and the dean concur in a recommendation against promotion, the promotion process terminates and the candidate and the department each have a right to appeal the decision of the college to the vice chancellor.
    2. In the case of tenure evaluations, all nominations are forwarded to the vice chancellor, regardless of the decision at the college level.
13. The vice chancellor reviews the documentation file, including the recommendations from the college and department, and makes an independent recommendation to the chancellor. The purpose of review at the vice chancellor level is to ensure that appropriate standards are being enforced across all colleges of the University and that they have been appropriately applied to the candidate. As part of the review process, the vice chancellor is encouraged to discuss problematic cases with the appropriate administrator or faculty committee before making a recommendation. If the vice chancellor recommends against the promotion and/or tenure status being sought, the candidate must be informed of the ability to obtain reasons and request reconsideration as described in Section VIII.C.9.
    1. In the case of promotion evaluations, if a negative recommendation has been made by one of the reviewing parties and the vice chancellor also makes a negative evaluation, the process terminates, although the candidate, department, and dean each have the right to appeal the decision to the chancellor.
    2. In the case of tenure evaluations, all nominations are forwarded to the chancellor, regardless of the decision at the college or vice chancellor levels.
    If the chancellor decides against the promotion and/or tenure status being sought, the vice chancellor shall transmit the decision in writing to the dean, the department, and the candidate. The candidate must be informed of the ability to obtain reasons and request reconsideration as given in section VIII.C.9. If the chancellor recommends in favor of the promotion and/or tenure status being sought, the candidate is notified by the vice chancellor and the nomination is forwarded to the Board of Regents for information purposes.
14. At any level of the consideration process, a candidate for promotion may request that the nomination be withdrawn from further consideration and such request shall be honored without prejudice to future attempts to secure promotion.
15. If a candidate at any point in the proceedings feels that these procedures are not being followed, several avenues are available to the candidate for redress through the governance system. The first recommended course of action is to discuss the situation with the responsible administrators. If the issue cannot be resolved through discussion with the responsible administrator, the candidate is entitled to contact the chair of the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee (ARRC) or the Faculty Ombuds Office to explore options through the ARRC or other university offices for resolution of the issue.

Return to Table of Contents

IX. Post-Tenure Review

IX.A. Purpose

While the annual review process is intended to assist faculty members on continuous appointment (tenured faculty) in achieving professional goals and maximizing contributions to the University throughout their professional careers, in cases where goals are not being met or contributions should be markedly improved, a post-tenure review will be conducted. This post-tenure review will emphasize the pattern of past performance, current interests of the faculty member, and the objectives for future contributions of the faculty member. The review will be based upon the principle of peer review and provide added assurance that faculty members on continuous appointment are accountable for their performance.

IX.B. Applicability

All members of the faculty who have been on a continuous contract for a period of three years or more may elect or be required to undergo post-tenure review. A faculty member shall not be subject to or eligible for post-tenure review more frequently than once every four years. A faculty member shall undergo a post-tenure review in either of the following circumstances:

1. A faculty member receives (after the third year of a continuous appointment):
   1. A written annual evaluation from the unit administrator that identifies a substantial and chronic deficiency⁴ in the faculty member's performance and which clearly states that, if the faculty member does not make substantial, acceptable progress toward remedying the deficiency by the next annual evaluation, a post-tenure review will be initiated; and
   2. Notification after the next annual review that the substantial and continuing deficiency in the previous evaluation has not been remedied, that a post-tenure review is required, and that the dean concurs.

2. A faculty member requests a review in accordance with the post-tenure review process. The purpose of such a review would be to provide helpful evaluation and assistance to the faculty member in planning a prospective program by which the faculty member can maximize their contributions to the University and more fully realize their professional goals.

Upon recommendation of the unit administrator and approval of the dean, a faculty member subject to post-tenure review under this section may be exempted or deferred for review if there are clearly extenuating circumstances (such as health problems) and an alternate plan for addressing the problems is adopted.

IX.C. Mandatory Procedures

IX.C.1. Initiating the Review Process

1. Whenever a special peer review is initiated, either by the faculty member or the unit administrator with concurrence from the dean, the unit administrator shall first consult with the faculty member and then shall establish a schedule for the conduct of the review. Ordinarily, the faculty member shall be provided notification by June 30 that a post-tenure review will be scheduled for the following academic year, preferably the fall term, following notification of, or request by, the faculty member.
2. For a review initiated under IX.B.1. above, the unit administrator shall construct a post-tenure review file containing a clear identification and description of the deficiency or deficiencies, copies of the faculty member's last three annual reviews, such other materials as are relevant, and a document suggesting ways in which the deficiency could be removed. For a review initiated under IX.B.2 above, the unit administrator shall construct a post-tenure review file containing copies of the faculty member's previous three annual reviews and such other materials as are relevant.
3. The faculty member shall have the opportunity to supplement the post-tenure review file throughout the review process by including any information the faculty member believes to be material and helpful. The unit administrator shall cooperate with the faculty member to provide relevant information and shall periodically notify the faculty member of additions to the file. The faculty member shall be given access to all materials in the post-tenure review file. If the faculty member acknowledges a deficiency in performance, they are encouraged to include in the file a plan to remedy the deficiency or to otherwise maximize their achievement of professional goals and contribution to the unit's mission, with specific goals and timetables for their achievement.
4. The faculty member and the unit administrator may include in the file a response to material provided by the other.
5. The unit administrator shall provide, as a preface to the peer review file, a copy of the procedures and schedule for the special peer review.

IX.C.2. Appointing the Review Committee

1. A Review Committee shall be selected to conduct the review of the faculty member's performance. The Committee shall be composed of an appropriate group of tenured faculty members from within and outside the unit who hold an academic rank at least equal to that of the faculty member to be reviewed. The Committee shall include some representation of the discipline and mission of the faculty member under review. Ordinarily, the Committee should be composed of 3 individuals capable of providing a fair and unbiased assessment of the faculty member's performance.
2. Initially, the unit administrator and the faculty member shall meet and attempt to agree on the composition of the Committee, which must be approved by the dean.
3. If the unit administrator and the faculty member are unable to agree on the composition of the Committee, the Committee shall be chosen by an appropriate elected faculty committee within the unit, or, for departments with fewer than ten full-time faculty members, within the College; the composition of the Committee is subject to approval by the dean. Each unit, in its by-laws or otherwise, shall have previously designated the appropriate elected faculty committee for this purpose.

IX.C.3. Conducting the Review

1. The Review Committee shall review the file constructed for this purpose and may meet with the unit administrator and the faculty member, either together or separately. The Committee may consult other sources of information not included in the file with the approval of the unit administrator and the faculty member.
2. Evaluation by peers external to the campus is required when research productivity is an issue: evaluation by peers external to the campus may be used when teaching and/or service/extension productivity is in question. If the Review Committee determines that evaluation by external peers is required or would be useful, the Committee shall notify the unit administrator and the faculty member. Thereafter, such outside reviews shall be obtained in accordance with the same procedure utilized by the unit to obtain outside reviews for purposes of making tenure decisions.
3. In accordance with the schedule for the review established by the unit administrator, the Review Committee shall make a written report of its findings and recommendations, if any.
4. If the post-tenure review is conducted at the request of the unit administrator pursuant to section IX.B.1, the written report of the Review Committee shall be provided to the unit administrator, the faculty member's dean, and the faculty member.
5. If the post-tenure review is conducted at the request of the faculty member pursuant to section IX.B.2, the written report of the Review Committee shall be provided solely to the faculty member. The faculty member, at their own discretion, may keep the Report confidential, share it with the unit administrator, or share it with the unit administrator and dean. If requested by the faculty member, the unit administrator and dean shall provide a written response to the Report, indicating the extent to which each agrees or disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the Report and why. At the request of the faculty member, the Report and any response from administrators shall be made part of the faculty member's permanent personnel record. The faculty member, the unit administrator, and the dean shall work together to implement those recommendations on which they mutually agree. Nothing in the Report shall be used in any university evaluation without the consent of the faculty member. However, the faculty member may not attempt to utilize only a portion of the Report or any edited version of the Report in other university evaluations.

IX.C.4. Preparing the Review Committee Report

1. The purpose of the Review Committee Report is to provide an assessment of the performance of the faculty member subject to review and, where appropriate or necessary, to provide recommendations to maximize the faculty member's contributions to the unit and the University. The Review Committee Report is advisory. The Report shall include part (a) below and, as appropriate, parts (b) through (e):
   1. An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member's performance;
   2. Recommendations for ways, if any, in which the faculty member could enhance achievement of their professional goals and their contributions to the mission of the unit, including suggestions, where appropriate, for adjustment in the faculty member's responsibilities, goals and timetables for meeting the goals, and criteria for assessing the faculty member's achievement of enhanced performance.
   3. An evaluation of any proposed plan submitted by the unit administrator or the faculty member to remedy any deficiency in the faculty member's performance and any recommended modification to such a plan.
   4. Recommendations for ways, if any, in which the unit administrator could provide professional development support to assist the faculty member in enhancing achievement of their professional goals and their contributions to the mission of the unit.
   5. For a review initiated under IX.B.1 above, any recommendations for sanctions to be imposed upon the faculty member for performance characterized by substantial and chronic deficiency.

2. The Review Committee, if it believes that inappropriate criteria have been used to evaluate the faculty member, shall also indicate that fact in its Report.
3. For a review initiated under IX.B.1 above, the Review Committee shall make one of the following findings, to be clearly stated in its Report:
   1. The faculty member does not have identified substantial and chronic deficiencies. If the Review Committee finds that the faculty member's performance does not reflect any substantial and chronic deficiency or deficiencies for the period under review, the faculty member and the unit administrator will be so informed in writing and the review is thereby completed.
   2. The faculty member has substantial and chronic deficiencies. The Review Committee shall state and describe the deficiency or deficiencies in its Report, which shall include all the elements listed under IX.C.4.1, items (a) through (e). The Committee shall provide a copy to the faculty member and the unit administrator./li>

4. The unit administrator shall allow the faculty member being reviewed an opportunity to provide a written response to the Review Committee Report. Except when the review was conducted at the faculty member's request, the Report and any response from the faculty member shall be made a part of the faculty member's permanent personnel record.

IX.C.5. Completing the Review Process under a Finding of Substantial and Chronic Deficiency

1. Upon receipt of a Review Committee report and the faculty member's response, if any, the unit administrator shall meet with the faculty member reviewed to consider the report and any recommendations therein. The unit administrator shall then provide the faculty member and the dean with a written appraisal of the faculty member's performance, together with all documentation pertaining to the faculty member's review, including the file constructed for the review, the Review Committee's Report, and the faculty member's written response to the review, if any. The appraisal shall include, where appropriate:
   1. the extent to which the unit administrator accepts or rejects the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee Report and the reasons for doing so; the unit administrator may reject the Review Committee's findings only for compelling reasons, communicated in writing to the faculty member and the dean.
   2. a plan outlining the expectations of the unit administrator as to how the faculty member can remedy any deficiency in performance or enhance the faculty member's professional goals and contribution to the unit, including specific goals and time tables for achieving such goals and the criteria to be applied in making such a determination;
   3. the resources the unit administrator is willing and able to provide the faculty member to assist in implementing the plan;
   4. any adjustment in assignment or responsibilities of the faculty member; and
   5. any sanction to be imposed on the faculty member related to their performance. Sanctions governed by Regents Bylaws shall only be imposed following the procedure prescribed in the bylaws

2. The dean, after review and consultation, may accept, modify, or reject the unit administrator's written appraisal and recommendations, but where the dean's appraisal differs from that provided by the Review Committee or where the dean accepts recommendations that differ from those provided by Review Committee, the dean may modify or reject only for compelling reasons, communicated in writing. The dean's response shall be provided to the faculty member and to the unit administrator.
3. A faculty member dissatisfied with the results of the special peer review and the unit administrator's subsequent appraisal, or the dean's acceptance, modification or rejection of it, may pursue any appeal or remedy otherwise available to faculty members relating to matters that affect their employment status⁵.
4. Progress towards achieving the goals and timetables set out in the unit administrator's plan, as approved by the dean, will be reviewed in subsequent annual reviews. If the faculty member fails to achieve the goals and timetables defined in that plan, those administrative processes defined by the Regent's Bylaws (and different from post-tenure review) may be initiated as appropriate. Post-tenure review is not a prerequisite for initiation of those other administrative processes.

Return to Table of Contents

X. Applicability and Effective Date of Guidelines

X.A.Scope of Applicability

Upon adoption, the Guidelines shall be applicable to all faculty members who hold appointments under Regents Bylaws, 3.1.1.1 "Academic and Administrative Staff," and every academic unit of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. For faculty members hired after the effective date of the Guidelines, the Guidelines shall define the reasonable expectations of the University community relative to evaluation of faculty members. For faculty members hired prior to the effective date of the Guidelines, the Guidelines shall define the reasonable expectations relative to evaluation of faculty members, except to the extent that a faculty member or an academic unit can show that any provision of the Guidelines significantly departs from the reasonable expectations of the faculty member or the academic unit which were formed prior to the effective date of the Guidelines.

X.B. Relations to Other Bylaws, Policies and Regulations

This document explains, supplements, and further implements the provisions of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Bylaws of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln concerning promotion and tenure.

Upon adoption and promulgation of this document by the chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the sole and exclusive statement of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln rules governing promotion and tenure practice shall be the following:

1. the Regents Bylaws;
2. the UNL Bylaws;
3. this document;
4. college and IANR rules and regulations;
5. departmental promotion and tenure standards and criteria.

Any college and IANR rules and regulations or departmental promotion and tenure standards and criteria not consistent with this document shall be deemed repealed, and all other statements purporting to declare or explain or implement rules governing promotion and tenure practice in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln shall be deemed repealed.

Nothing in this document is intended to impair any right or expectation enjoyed by any employee of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by virtue of any specific contract between the employee and the University or by virtue of the protections of any state or federal constitutional or statutory provision.

X.C. Modifications of Provisions

If any academic unit believes that a provision of these Guidelines departs significantly from the tradition of its academic discipline or may seriously interfere with the unit's ability to compete for quality faculty, that unit may request the chancellor to modify that provision as applied to that unit. Any such requests shall involve a recommendation from the faculty of the academic unit involved. Proposed modifications shall be submitted in writing to the chancellor through the appropriate dean and vice chancellor for their recommendation. The request shall provide:

1. the specific provision sought to be modified;
2. a proposed modification of the provision;
3. justification of the proposed modification.

The chancellor, after discussion with the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, may grant a modification of any provision of these Guidelines if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed modification represents a fair and effective process of evaluation of faculty and complies with the traditions of that unit's academic discipline or may be necessary to permit the unit to compete effectively with its peers for quality faculty.

X.D. Revisions

This document represents a consensus of UNL's faculty, the chancellor, and other academic officers. In an effort to maintain this consensus, the chancellor shall, prior to issuance of any revisions to this document, consider the views of the Council of Academic Deans, the Faculty Senate, and the appropriate vice chancellors.

X.E. Effective Date

The original version of this document, Guidelines for the Evaluation of Faculty: Annual Evaluations, Promotion, and Tenure became effective on December 5, 2001 when it was adopted and signed by the chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The current version was approved by the Faculty Senate on November 7, 2023 and accepted by the Chancellor on December 5, 2023, effective beginning with promotion and/or tenure considerations conducted during 2024-2025 and with annual evaluations conducted in spring 2025.

* These Guidelines supplement the Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (1984), Section 4, and the Bylaws of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1976), Section 2.

** Special Appointments are non-tenure track appointments and include temporary appointments, part-time appointments, visiting appointments, and appointments supported by "soft dollars", that is, funds over which the University does not have control indefinitely, or which the University cannot reasonably expect to continue.