Third, I firmly believe that the vast majority of our faculty members are hard-working and conscientious individuals. I believe that they will want to excel in their reviews. As a result, some of them may focus special attention on their professional activities. The effect of the intensive five-year review process will be of substantial benefit to both the faculty member and the institution. It is important to note that, if a faculty member's performance is found to be unsatisfactory as an outcome of the regular yearly evaluation, the Chief Administrative Officer of the institution is in no way restricted from initiating proceedings to dismiss the faculty member at that time.
Peer reviews are a key element in the proposed post-tenure review process.
The guidelines permit component institutions to mandate that all reviews be initiated by a committee of peer faculty members. If a component decides not to mandate peer reviews, either the faculty member, the Department Chairman, or the Dean may initiate a peer review process. No faculty member who prefers a peer review would be denied the opportunity to be reviewed by his or her peers. The faculty as a whole will not have to invest a burdensome amount of time serving on post-tenure review committees. There is no question that some faculty members will have to devote a significant amount of time serving on post-tenure review committees.