Once established, the on-going process should continue to include peer involvement. The policies and procedures for post-tenure review should be coordinated with and complementary to existing policies and procedures for assessment of faculty performance at each institution. The process should not replace annual reviews of faculty performance. All institutions shall continue the process of annual review. Institutions should be reminded to consider resource issues in establishing their processes.
Faculty development is basic to the concept of post-tenure review.
The consensus seemed to be emerging that general principles should be established centrally but as much flexibility as possible should be retained for individual institutions. For example, we should include those things centrally that are basic to all good programs, such as guarantees of due process, provision for consequences, etc. but permit institutions within the framework of the Code to fill in the detail on these. We might want to give examples where it would clarify or promote dialogue. What is best done centrally in a state system and what is best left to local institutions.