9.36 – Faculty Post Tenure Review

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Scope: NMSU System

Source: ARP Chapter 9 | HR - Performance Evaluation, Promotion and Tenure

Responsible Executive: President

Responsible Administrator:

Last Updated: 05/20/2019



ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty

ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline

ARP 10.50 – Faculty Alleged Misconduct Investigation, Discipline, and Appeals Processes

Revision History:

09/01/2023 Title change from "provost and senior vice president for academic affairs" to "provost and chief academic officer"
05/20/2019 Amendment [FSP Prop 16-18/19] approved by Chancellor
2017 Recompilation, formerly numbered as Rule 5.91 (AY18/19) and Rule 5.87 (Pre-AY18/19)
09/08/2006 Policy adoption ratified by Board of Regents

(fka 5.87)

PART 1: INTRODUCTION (fka 5.87.1)

The Post-Tenure Review rule ensures that all tenured faculty members will receive an annual review and that those with either exceptionally fine performance or serious deficiencies in one or more areas will be identified. Special achievement shall be rewarded in a manner determined by each college or community college campus.  For a tenured faculty member who receives two successive unsatisfactory annual reviews with identified and uncorrected serious deficiencies, this rule provides a mechanism to establish a remedial program for correcting the deficiencies.  The legislation to which this rule responds is particularly concerned with the quality of teaching, and that fact shall be considered when taking any action under this rule.  In particular, faculty whose teaching needs improvement will be urged to take advantage of “programs designed to assist faculty members in enhancing their teaching skills.”  (NMSA 1978, Section 21-1-7.1)


PART 2: ANNUAL REVIEWS (fka 5.87.2)

  1. Annual Review for Tenured Faculty: Tenured faculty members annually participate in and receive an extensive examination of their teaching, their research and scholarly output, and their service as part of the annual review process conducted in accordance with ARP 9.31 – [Effective AY 18/19] Annual Performance Evaluation – Regular Faculty.  This annual review document shall be labeled the Post Tenure Review of each tenured faculty member.  This Post Tenure Review shall weight the three areas of teaching, scholarly work, and service in proportion to the percentage each category is given in the faculty member’s allocation of effort for a given year.
  2. Post Tenure Review Not Applicable for Full Time Administrators: Administrators who hold tenured faculty rank are reviewed on the performance of their faculty duties (teaching, research, and service).  Administrators who have no assigned faculty duties will not be reviewed under this rule.



  1. Notification to Faculty Member about Deficiency: If, in the judgment of a superior, the annual review for a tenured faculty member shows a serious deficiency in the performance of that faculty member, the superior shall inform the faculty member in writing of the deficiency as well as recommend actions the faculty member might take to address the issue.
  2. Deficiency Not Rectified: If the deficiency or deficiencies continues for two or more years and if the faculty member has not taken the corrective actions, one of two possible courses of action may ensue:
    1. The faculty member may request that the superior submit the record of poor performance and suggested actions to the other tenured faculty members of the unit for consideration in a more complete review, or
    2. If the faculty member does not request the review, the superior may initiate such a review with the concurrence of a majority of the tenured faculty in the academic unit.
  3. Goal of and Procedures for More Complete Review: The more complete review shall have the aim of identifying strengths and weaknesses of the faculty member in teaching, research, and service.
    1. This review shall be undertaken by the departmental promotion and tenure committee.
    2. If there is no departmental promotion and tenure committee for that unit, the review will be undertaken by the equivalent college-level promotion and tenure committee as specified ARP 9.35 – [Effective AY 18/19] Faculty Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Procedural Guidelines and Timeline of this manual.
    3. Student evaluations must be considered when evaluating the faculty member’s teaching, along with other factors. Student evaluations considered as part of performance evaluations, may not include numerical ratings, letter grades, or other “scores” of specific aspects of the course, the course as a whole, or of the instructor.
    4. If the reviewers conclude that the faculty member’s performance is not seriously deficient, the faculty member shall be so informed and a statement of the finding placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
    5. If serious deficiency is found, a specific remedial program shall be developed in consultation with the faculty member that includes procedures, criteria for evaluating progress, and a reasonable timetable. If the faculty member’s teaching needs improvement, such a program might include participation in programs offered by the Teaching Academy, mentoring by a recipient of teaching awards, intensive study of videotaped classroom sessions, etc. When research and publication needs improvement, collaboration with another faculty member and participation in workshops on publishing might be indicated.  However, in accordance with NMSA 1978, Section 21-1-7.1, part E(1), any remedial effort can be no shorter than two years in length.



Whether or not a tenured faculty member accepts the recommendation to participate in a teaching or scholarly work enhancement program, and whether or not the member performs well in the program, the faculty member’s performance will be judged on subsequent teaching and scholarly work.



The more complete review shall not be initiated for any tenured faculty member more frequently than once every five years.



If a tenured faculty member’s teaching deficiencies are considered by the provost and chief academic officer to be very serious and to have been uncorrected at the conclusion of the agreed time period, and further, if there is evidence that the faculty member’s teaching performance has deteriorated since the award of tenure such that the faculty member’s teaching performance is now typically unsatisfactory, the provost and chief academic officer shall recommend loss of tenure for the faculty member in question.

If tenure is to be revoked, the university shall follow the processes specified in ARP 10.50 – Faculty Alleged Misconduct Investigation, Discipline and Appeals Processes for Involuntary Termination of a Continuous Contract, subject to the safeguards of due process.


PART 7: REPORTING (fka 5.87.7)

Every year, each academic dean and the chief community college executive officer of each campus shall report to the provost and chief academic officer.

  1. The number of tenured faculty receiving annual evaluations,
  2. The number receiving unsatisfactory evaluations,
  3. The number of tenured faculty who have been the subject of a more detailed peer review,
  4. The number of faculty who have participated in a remedial program as a result,
  5. The results of those programs,
  6. And the number of faculty whose tenure have been revoked