Approved by the Board of Regents, July 12, 1996
  The Board of Regents of the University of Maryland System (UMS)
  established the principle of faculty evaluation in its policy on
  Evaluation of Performance of Faculty (II-1.20) and the principle
  of accountability for faculty workload and performance in its
  policy on Faculty Workload and Responsibilities (II-1.25).  To
  coordinate and implement these principles, the Board of Regents
  requires that each institution shall establish a policy on the
  comprehensive review of tenured faculty, and procedures to
  implement such a policy.  Policies and procedures already in
  place assure that untenured faculty receive mandated
  comprehensive reviews.  This policy establishes a requirement for
  the comprehensive review, at regular intervals, of faculty on
  indefinite tenure appointments.
  Comprehensive review of faculty shall be part of a larger faculty
  development program at each institution, designed to enhance the
  professional abilities of the faculty as teachers and scholars
  and members of the academic community.  To enable the
  comprehensive review process, institutions shall commit resources
  not only to the process itself, but also to its accompanying
  faculty development program.
  General Principles/Criteria
  The specifics of comprehensive review policies and procedures
  should be left open to the institutions, within the limits of
  reasonable consistency across the UMS, in order to take into
  account individual missions, cultures, and traditions.
  At the same time, the policies and procedures of each constituent
  institution shall include provision for the following:
  1.   Each tenured faculty member shall be subject to periodic
       comprehensive reviews that assess the faculty member's
  2.   Comprehensive review shall be a formative process for future
       faculty development, for enhancing the learning environment
       of students, and for the improvement of the academic program
       to which the faculty member contributes.
  3.   Comprehensive review shall be conducted as a process of
       collegial assessment, take place at the department/unit
       level, and be consistent with the general principles of peer
       review.  Each institution shall determine the appropriate
       level at which such review shall take place.  Institutional
       policies and procedures shall address specifically the
       elements of peer review, including the responsibilities of
       the faculty member to the review, the process of review to
       be conducted by department/unit colleagues, and the roles of
       the department/unit chair, dean and provost (or other
       appropriate senior academic officer).  Department/unit
       policies and procedures shall be filed with and approved by
       the dean and provost (or other appropriate senior academic
  4.   The comprehensive review shall include an evaluation of
       instruction, research/scholarship, and service.
       Institutional policies and procedures shall be consistent
       with the preservation of academic freedom and shall include
       specific criteria to assess the expectations of faculty
       performance over time.
  5.   Each tenured faculty member shall be reviewed at least once
       every five years.  Each review shall evaluate the faculty
       member's performance since the last review.  Annual salary
       and workload reviews may be used as part of the
       comprehensive review.  Two consecutive annual reviews that
       indicate that a faculty member is materially deficient in
       meeting expectations* shall occasion an immediate
       comprehensive review, which shall be in addition to those
       otherwise required by this policy. [NOTE: *Quantitative
       workload "expectations" are clarified in section IV.
       Standard Workload Expectations of the BOR Policy on Faculty
       Workload and Responsibilities (II-1.25).  Qualitative
       performance expectations shall be determined at the
       department/unit level.]
  6.   While the faculty member shall be a principal provider of
       the review materials, multiple sources of information shall
       be used as the basis for the evaluation.
  7.   A favorable periodic review shall be conveyed to the faculty
       member, and, where possible, shall be considered in
       decisions on promotion, merit pay, and other rewards.
  8.   If a faculty member's performance is judged as not meeting
       expectations, a specific development plan shall be worked
       out among the dean, department/unit, and the individual
       faculty member, consistent with the overall faculty
       development programs and resources of the individual campus.
       This plan shall include a procedure for evaluation of
       progress at fixed intervals and shall be signed by all
  9.   The faculty member being reviewed shall have access to
       summary written reports and shall have ample opportunity to
       respond to such reports in a formal way.
  10.  This comprehensive review process may not be substituted for
       the UMS and institutional policies and procedures relating
       to the termination of tenured appointments, which are in no
       way amended by this policy.
  11.  Each institution shall develop policies and procedures
       consistent with this policy.  Institutional policies and
       procedures for periodic review shall not duplicate other
       existing institutional policies and procedures.
  12.  The UMS policy on comprehensive review, and any
       institutional policies and procedures on comprehensive
       review, are in addition to other UMS and institutional
       policies and procedures concerning faculty evaluation and/or
  13.  Institutional policies and procedures shall be approved by
       the Chancellor and be filed with the Office of the
  AAAC, March 5, 1996
  Revised Chancellor's Council, May 6, 1996
  Approved by the Attorney General for form and legal sufficiency.