Post Tenure Review - Guidelines

On October 13, 2021, the USG Board of Regents approved several changes to Section 8.3.5. Evaluation of Personnel that will require revision of our internal policies at Augusta University.

These revisions included significant revision to the post-tenure review process (Section While the changes go into effect immediately and have already been posted to the BOR website listed above, the BOR is allowing institutions time to review and revise their internal post-tenure review policy and develop an implementation timeline to phase in these revisions. Thus, for now, our internal policies (both institutional and college/school) will govern our post-tenure review process until our new policy is developed. We anticipate policy revision to be finalized in 2022-2023, and an appropriate timeline for implementation will be developed as part of that revision. As information becomes available about the new internal policy and its phasing in, it will be posted here.

Our current Augusta University Evaluation of Faculty Policy will govern. A summary of the institutional policy and process is provided below. You should also contact your dean’s office for specific information about your college or school’s process.

Eligibility for Review

  • All tenured faculty members will undergo a post-tenure review in the spring of the 5th year after the date of tenure award, the hire date with tenure, the most recent post-tenure review, OR the most recent promotion, whichever date is later.
  • Tenured faculty members who have > 50% assigned effort in administration are not required to undergo post-tenure review. Their review clock will be reset in the first year that their administrative effort is below 50%, and they will be reviewed in the fifth year following the return to faculty.
  • If an individual is on leave at the time of review, he/she will be reviewed during the first academic year after his/her return.

Process for Review

Review Committee. Conducted by at least three tenured faculty members, all or a majority of those who are in the tenure home college/school of the individual being reviewed. A representative of the individual’s department may be included as a non-voting member of the review committee.

Review Scope. Encompasses teaching, research/scholarly achievement, and service. It will be based upon the faculty member’s current job description and assigned effort.

Review Portfolio. Documentation required in the portfolio will include the following:

  • a job description
  • a summary table of assigned effort for five most recent years
  • a summary table of annual evaluations ratings for the five most recent years
  • a copy of the five most recent annual evaluations
  • a curriculum vitae
  • evidence of scholarship, teaching and service consistent with chair-assigned effort
  • other reports/forms/documentation as required by the college or school.

Review Rating. Competence in all three areas is expected as is excellence in the areas of primary activity. Lack of activity in an area for three years shall be deemed unsatisfactory.

Review Report and Communication. The procedures for reporting and communicating outcome of the review is as follows:

  • Written report. Results and recommendations of the review committee will be communicated in writing to both the individual faculty member and the Department Chair. The members of the review committee should be included in the report. The Chair and the committee will come to an agreement on the content of the review. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Dean will be consulted.
  • Meeting with Chair. The Chair will then review the findings with the individual faculty member. During the meeting, the Chair should notify the faculty member of his/her appeal rights. The individual faculty member will be provided with a written copy of the report at least five working days prior to the meeting. The faculty member and the Chair will sign the document after review. The faculty member, if he/she desires, may prepare a written response. The faculty member’s signature indicates that s/he has had opportunity to review the report, discuss it with the chair, and provide a written response and has been notified of his/her appeal rights; it does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report. In instances where an area of deficiency is noted, the Chair should include in the report a recommendation for the development of a post-tenure development plan (PTDP).
  • Report to Dean. The Chair will transmit the signed report (with any response by the faculty member) to the Dean. In the case of reviews of Department Chairs the results will be communicated directly to the Dean. The Dean will complete review and prepare a written recommendation to the Provost for further action or no action. If the department report has recommended a PTDP, the Dean should work with the Chair at this time to develop a PTDP.
  • Post Tenure Development Plan (PTDP). In instances where an area of deficiency is noted, the Chair is responsible for preparing a PTDP, in consultation with faculty member and Dean. (PTDPs for Chairs will be developed by the Dean in consultation with the Chair.) The PTDP should directly relate to the findings of the findings of the review. For more details about the PTDP, please refer to the Evaluation of Faculty Policy or contact the Office of Faculty Affairs at
  • Report to Provost. The Dean’s report (inclusive of department report, faculty response, Dean’s recommendation, and PTDP (if applicable) will be provided to the Provost (through the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. If the report includes a PTDP and/or a recommendation that is different from the departmental report, then the Dean’s report should also be provided to the faculty member, with notice of his/her appeal rights.

Follow Up Reviews for PTDP

  • Progress on PTDP should be addressed in each annual evaluation of the PTDP cycle.
  • At the end of the PTDP cycle, the individual shall be reviewed by a three-member review committee. If possible, the committee should have the same members who completed the original review.
  • Results of the review will be communicated in writing to the Department Chair. The Chair and the committee will come to an agreement on the content of the review. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Dean will be consulted.
  • Upon satisfactory completion of the PTDP the individual shall continue with five-year reviews, such time commencing with the next academic year after completion of the program.
  • If completion of the PTDP is deemed unsatisfactory by the review committee, the Chairperson, and the Dean, this decision with a recommendation from the Chairperson and the Dean will be referred to the President (through the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs) for further action.

Appeals Process

Faculty members may appeal 1) decisions made from a post-tenure review, 2) requirements of a PTDP, and/or 3) subsequent actions resulting from the review process. Appeals to department review should be made to the Dean within 10 days of meeting with the Chair to discuss the report. Appeals to the Dean decision and/or the PTDP should be made to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs within 10 days of receipt of the Dean’s report. For more information about the appeals process, please contact the Office of Faculty Affairs at

Tenured faculty members who are eligible for post-tenure review will be notified in writing by the Office of Faculty Affairs in the fall of their 5th post tenure academic year, and the review will be conducted in the spring of that academic year.

Timeline for Post Tenure Review

Year Tenure Awarded or
Year of Last Review
Completion of 5 years
Post Tenure Service
Review Occurs
2016-17 June 30, 2022 Spring 2022
2017-18 June 30, 2023 Spring 2023
2018-19 June 30, 2024 Spring 2024
2019-20 June 30, 2025 Spring 2025
2020-21 June 30, 2026 Spring 2026
2021-22 June 30, 2027 Spring 2027
2022-23 June 30, 2028 Spring 2028
2023-24 June 30, 2029 Spring 2029
2024-25 June 30, 2030 Spring 2030