University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Faculty Assembly

of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs EPUS Committee*

This policy is designed to guide faculty members, primary unit heads, and departmental committees responsible for preparing, reviewing, or evaluating the Professional Plans of faculty members at the University of Colorado at Springs campus. It may also serve as a guide for individuals or committees responsible for implementing the "Professional Plan Policy for Faculty" which became effective July 1, 1998. Because the Professional Plan may be used as part of the larger tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review processes, it is important to bear in mind that these guidelines and the policy itself must conform to AAUP (American Association of University Professors) Statements on Academic Freedom and Tenure as adopted by the Regents of the University of Colorado on 8/27/66, 10/22/82, and 1/20/83 and other rules of the University of Colorado - Faculty Handbook. Individuals or groups implementing or fulfilling the requirements of this policy should be familiar with the guidelines of the AAUP. The following AAUP documents, essential to implementing this policy, are available via the Internet: AAUP Home Page (http://aaup.princeton.edu/aaup_home.htm); Post-Tenure Review Policies (http:// www.igc.apc.org/aaup/postten.htm): and the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with Interpretive Comments (http://www.igc.apc.org/aaup/1940stat.htm).

The primary purpose of the Professional Plan is to promote faculty development. The Plan should give faculty members an opportunity to contemplate and communicate their plans for continuing or enhancing their professional contributions in the areas of scholarship (research, writing, or creative work), teaching, and service. The initial plan should describe projections for professional productivity over a five year period. The following components should be considered in developing the plan:

0. The professional plan should generally not exceed one page in length. The plan should provide a general description of planned activities in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service.
1. The Professional Plans should be qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. The purpose of the plan should be to provide an overview of the likely areas of professional accomplishments over the next five years. The document should not be used to set, for example, a specific number of publications projected for that period. Yearly or post-tenure evaluations of the plan should be based on a review of the quality of the work and a determination of whether appropriate efforts were made in targeted areas.
2. Professional plans will be submitted or updated during the spring semester of each year as part of the Annual Scholarly Reports. A new section will be included in a revised version of the scholarly report form.
3. Plans may be updated at any time. This may be necessary to accommodate a variety of situations such as the receipt of grant awards, acceptance fellowships, or changes in the focus of scholarly inquiry/teaching interest.
4. The Professional Plan should be written and evaluated based on a "good faith" effort on the part of the faculty member to contribute professionally and for the university to adequately support that professional contribution. The Professional Plan should not be viewed as the literal fulfillment of a set of nonnegotiable demands or rigid expectations, quantitative or otherwise.
5. In the case of a tenured faculty member, the Professional Plan shall not require a faculty member to exceed the expectations applied at the time tenure was granted.
6. For a faculty member who has been found to be "meeting expectations" in the annual review process, the plan may be appropriately updated by stating that one intends to continue pursuing the tasks outlined in the previous plan.
7. Projections made in the Professional Plan, when compared to the faculty member’s progress and achievements, should be considered as one of many possible bases for evaluating professional performance.
8. Because Professional Plans may be reviewed for purposes of plan evaluation, promotion, tenure, annual merit, or post-tenure review, the faculty members of each primary unit will decide who will review the plans at various levels of examination. Ideally the plans should be reviewed by an elected group of peers. The primary unit may decide to delegate this responsibility to an individual, such as the head of the primary unit,
9. There must be an appeals process available where any and all matters pertaining to the review can be considered by an appropriate group of elected peers.
10. The head of the primary unit or a faculty committee (based on the policy of the primary unit) will review Professional Plans annually. Teaching and advising loads must be approved by the reviewer(s) to assure that the teaching needs of the unit are met. In the area of scholarly productivity, the reviewers may only comment on the adequacy, feasibility, or wisdom of the plan, but do not formally approve or disapprove it. In the area of service, the reviewer(s) will generally comment only on the adequacy, feasibility, or wisdom of the plan unless, in rare cases, the primary unit determines that a particular kind of service is vital to the mission of the primary unit.

*This policy will be submitted to the Faculty Assembly of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs for review during the Fall 1998 term. They are subject to the approval and/or modifications by this faculty group.