{"id":10338,"date":"2026-03-27T16:13:08","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T21:13:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/secu\/?page_id=10338"},"modified":"2026-04-10T12:38:29","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T17:38:29","slug":"post-tenure-review-criteria","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/uwm.edu\/secu\/governance\/faculty\/divisional-committees\/division-of-social-sciences-executive-committee\/post-tenure-review-criteria\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Tenure Review Criteria & Checklist: Division of Social Sciences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Procedures for Responding to a Negative Post-Tenure Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\nChecklist for Submission<\/a>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This document lays out the procedures and criteria that the Committee will use to advise the Dean about whether the \u201cDoes Not Meet Expectations\u201d judgment is justified. Upon the vote of a Departmental Executive Committee that a tenured faculty member has failed to meet expectations relative to departmental criteria and a 5-year Faculty Development Plan on file (UWM Faculty Document No. 3083R2<\/a>), the Dean of the relevant college will seek the advice of the Division of Social Sciences Executive Committee. The role of the Divisional Executive Committee is to determine whether or not sufficient reasons are provided for the judgment of the Department that the faculty member \u201cDoes Not Meet Expectations,\u201d and submit that evaluation to the Dean. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dean\u2019s request for advice will be forwarded to the Chair of the Divisional Executive Committee, along with files prepared for a Departmental recommendation of \u201cDoes Not Meet Expectations\u201d from a faculty member\u2019s post-tenure review in accordance with the outline provided below. The Committee strongly urges the Department to refer to the checklist to ensure that the file conforms to the content and organization requirements. The Committee will return incomplete files that do not follow the provided outline. Completed files should be sent to the appropriate Dean, and not directly to the Divisional Executive Committee. After a sufficiency examination by the Dean, the Dean should transmit the file to the Divisional Executive Committee, along with a request for advice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The materials forwarded to the Divisional Executive Committee should include: 1) the Primary File, 2) the Appendix, and 3) the transmittal letter from the Dean, requesting advice from the Division of Social Sciences Executive Committee on the extent to which sufficient reasons are provided for the judgment of the Department that the faculty member \u201cDoes Not Meet Expectations.\u201d A checklist of the content to be included in the Primary File and Appendix is located in Appendix A<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Once the Dean has requested advice from the Divisional Executive Committee and electronically transmitted the materials described above, the Committee will review the materials and set a meeting date and time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. At the meeting of the Division of Social Sciences Executive Committee, a representative of the Departmental Executive Committee will make a presentation to the Divisional Committee, answering their questions about the documentation provided. Discussion will center on the extent to which the Department adhered to their criteria and policies for post tenure review, and not on the qualities of the faculty member.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. The faculty member will have the opportunity to make a presentation and answer questions from the Divisional Executive Committee at the same meeting, without the representatives of the department EC present.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Following review of materials and discussion, the Divisional Executive Committee members will discuss and vote on:\n
      \n
    1. whether or not the process followed by the Department was sufficient, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. to the extent possible, given the information available, whether or not the candidate meets expectations.

      A vote of \u201csufficient\u201d means the Divisional Executive Committee assesses the process followed by the Department as adhering to the policies outlined in       UWM Faculty Document 3083R2<\/a> and finds that the decision made by the Department is supported by the provided documentation and description of process. A vote of \u201cinsufficient\u201d means the reasons for the Department\u2019s decision are not sufficiently supported by processes and\/or documentation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. The outcome of the vote is then transmitted to the Dean within 10 business days, for their further consideration.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n