Post-Tenure Review Guidelines (2025)

Table of Contents

1.   When is a Post-Tenure Review Conducted?
2.   What Period of Time Does a Post-Tenure Review Cover?
3.   What Mitigating Circumstances Must a Post-Tenure Review Consider?
4.   Who Conducts a Post-Tenure Review?
5.   What Materials are Required for Post-Tenure Review?
6.   What are Performance Ratings, and How Are They Determined?
7.    What are Performance Improvement Plans (PIP), and How Are They Part of the Process?
8.   How Can Faculty Appeal the Results of a Post-Tenure Review?

APPENDIX A:   Glossary of Terms
APPENDIX B:   Timeline of the Post-Tenure Review
APPENDIX C:  The Role of Discipline-Specific Criteria in Post-Tenure Reviews
APPENDIX D:   Related Policies to Consult

Post-Tenure Review

Board of Trustees policy BOT-24 Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review mandates "the review of every tenured faculty member in order to assess the tenured faculty member's performance since the award of tenure." The policy further mandates that the review processes "promote communication, openness, fairness, and faculty participation."

BOT-13, "The Board of Trustees has resolved that the procedures used in annual reviews shall: Preserve academic freedom. Protect due process. Establish professional development as a goal. Define a mechanism for initiating the in-depth review process" (BOT-13, Policy Statement, C. 1-4). Consequently, annual review criteria, disciplinary criteria, and feedback from each annual review process shall be provided to faculty in writing prior to the commencement of each annual review performance period. Moreover, feedback provided by each annual review letter shall be provided to faculty in writing prior to the commencement of the next year of evaluation, thereby providing a full year in which to work with the benefit of the previous year's feedback from the previous annual review period.

1. When is a Post-Tenure Review Conducted?

BOT-24 requires the completion of a post-tenure review

• "Within five years after tenure is granted"; and
• "Every five years thereafter in compliance with Indiana law."

In the event that a faculty member has had tenure for five or more years but has not yet received a five-year review, "the first post-tenure review shall assess the tenured faculty member's performance since the award of tenure." The Academic Leadership Council Executive Committee will determine the timing of the reviews in the first five years of BOT-24.

2. What Period of Time Does a Post-Tenure Review Cover?

Faculty are required to submit an annual report each year. Annual review in the "standardized annual review letter" evaluates performance "during the preceding year" (BOT-24). The five-year post-tenure review incorporates the five most recent annual review periods.
All faculty undergoing their first post-tenure review shall provide information about their performance since the year in which tenure was initially awarded. After a faculty member's first post-tenure review, the evaluation period for post-tenure review shall include the following 5 years.

3. What mitigating circumstances must a post-tenure review consider?

Faculty and librarians may experience life events at various stages of their careers that may affect their productivity or change their effort allocation — such as the birth of a child, elder care responsibilities, or the opportunity to accept prestigious fellowships or research-related awards. In such cases, they are eligible to request a leave of absence for personal reasons or professional opportunities (e.g., BL-ACA-F1 and BL-ACA-F2, FMLA).
Before initiating a review, the Departmental Chair in conjunction with the Review Committee will consider all mitigating  circumstances influencing Faculty Member productivity consistent with IU Policy on leaves and absences defined by VPFAA https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/leaves-absences/index.html  

4. Who Conducts a Post-Tenure Review?

A strongly recommended best practice is for the Department Chair or unit head to assign the review to a committee of faculty who have been elected, appointed, or otherwise delegated to conduct post-tenure reviews. The faculty member retains the option to request a committee review. BOT-24 states that the Department Chair or unit head will review materials and submit a written assessment. After the department review, the case moves to the College level where a review committee will be assigned to provide recommendations to the Executive Dean, who assesses the case and submits the College-level evaluation.

5. What Materials are Required for a Post-Tenure Review?

Two types of materials are required for post-tenure review: materials that the faculty member under review must submit; and materials that the unit conducting the review must submit. Post-tenure review cannot take place unless all of the following materials have been provided. Post-tenure Review requires the review author to consult the following materials, all of which must be included in the faculty member's Review Packet.

Materials the faculty member must provide. The faculty member under review shall submit materials to be included in a Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packet, as described by BOT-24. At minimum, the Review Packet must include

• An Activity Summary. The faculty member will submit a summary of their activity during the period under post-tenure review, comprising "a single page per productivity area (e.g. teaching, scholarship, and service) highlighting accomplishments and summarizing productivity over the previous five years" (BOT-24). Faculty may supplement their Activity Summary with "additional information that was not included in [their] annual reports regarding community engagement, sponsored research, performances, etc." (BOT-24).
• A full and current curriculum vitae

Materials that must be provided by the department or unit. The Departmental Chair must ensure the availability of all materials specified in BOT-24 as essential to Five-Year Reviews toward the goal of a fair and equitable reviews across departments and individuals within departments.

As stated in BOT-24, "the post-tenure review process for tenured faculty members will measure productivity and include, at minimum, the following:

• The faculty member's teaching workload.
• The total number of students who[m] the faculty member teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level.
• The time spent on instructional assignments and the time spent on overseeing graduate students.
• The research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member."

The chair is encouraged to consult with the faculty member regarding time spent on instructional assignments and on overseeing graduate students.

Other materials shall include:

• Discipline-specific criteria
• Five Annual Reports/Annual Review Letters. Annual reviews must specify "the faculty member's teaching workload, the total number of students who the faculty member teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level; time spent on instructional assignments and the time spent on overseeing graduate students; the research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member" (BOT-24). These letters must also be consistent with BOT-14 Guidelines on Annual Reviews and the College Policy on Annual Reviews. "the department chair/unit head will issue a standardized annual review letter for each faculty member that will include the following:  ... summary of university level standard performance rating categories for annual review to be used in rating the individual assigned area of responsibility and overall performance rating:
  • Exceeds productivity expectations
  • Meets productivity expectations
  • Does not meet productivity expectations
  • Unsatisfactory productivity
• A written summary and performance rating in each assigned area of responsibility;
• An overall performance rating; and written documentation of concerns." (BOT-24 Policy Statement, Annual Reviews).
• Written confirmation of the faculty member's effort allocation formula.
• A clear statement of departmental criteria for review.
• If a Performance Improvement Plan occurred during the review period, a letter from the Department Chair will clearly state if the post-improvement plan (PIP) had been completed successfully; if it is determined that the PIP was not completed successfully, the letter from the Department Chair will clearly state the reasons for this determination.

6. What are performance ratings assigned, and how are they determined?

Each department or unit will determine its own method for assigning performance ratings in post-tenure reviews and in annual reviews.  The Chair or unit equivalent should work in collaboration with the department's elected merit committee and/or other elected departmental governance committees (BL-ACA-E23).
Assignment of the overall performance rating:

These are the best practices for assigning productivity ratings:

1. An assignment of "Does not meet productivity expectations"  should be given only if the following conditions have been met:

• Five years of annual review letters as defined by BOT-24 were provided to the faculty after the completion of annual reviews consistent with BOT-14 each of the previous five years, thereby providing annual feedback that may be used in each subsequent year during the five-year window of evaluation
• Disciplinary specific criteria as defined by BOT-24 were provided to the faculty in writing in advance of each of the previous five years.
• Written effort allocation as defined by BOT-24 for each individual faculty member was provided to the faculty member under review in each of the previous five years.
• Each of the previous five years provided feedback as described above and in BOT-24, including a written statement of areas of concern in each successive year, to: "Preserve academic freedom. Protect due process. Establish professional development as a goal" as required by BOT-13 (BOT-13, Policy Statement, C. lines 1-4).

• In the five previous annual review letters as defined by BOT-24, an annual review letter provided an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating in one of the previous 5 years, which must have been noted in writing during one of the annual review periods during the previous 5 years.
• Incident to an annual review letter containing an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as described in BOT-24 must have been in effect for 12 months immediately after the presentation the annual review letter containing an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating, thereby providing the faculty member under review with the opportunity to remedy the noted deficiency and to establish professional development as a goal.
• The faculty member, at the end of the year in which a PIP has been in process, has been evaluated not to have met the conditions of the PIP.
  
• An assignment of "Unsatisfactory productivity" in general only would be given if a Performance Improvement Plan has not been responded to successfully by the faculty member. Other factors to consider are:
• Five years of annual review letters as defined by BOT-24 were provided to the faculty after the completion of annual reviews consistent with BOT-14 each of the previous five years, thereby providing annual feedback that may be used in each subsequent year during the five-year window of evaluation.
• Disciplinary specific criteria as defined by BOT-24 were provided to the faculty in writing in advance of each of the previous five years.
• Written effort allocation as defined by BOT-24 for each individual faculty member was provided to the faculty member under review in each of the previous five years.
• Each of the previous five years provided feedback as described above and in BOT-24, including a written statement of areas of concern in each successive year, to: "Preserve academic freedom. Protect due process. Establish professional development as a goal" as required by BOT-13 (BOT-13, Policy Statement, C. lines 1-4).
• In the five previous annual review letters as defined by BOT-24, two or more of the annual review letters provided an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating in two or more of the previous 5 years, which must have been noted in writing during two or more of the annual review periods during the previous 5 years.
• Incident to each written annual review letter containing an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating, a performance improvement plan (PIP) as described in BOT-24 must have been in effect for 12 months immediately after the presentation of each annual review letter containing an overall unsatisfactory annual report rating, thereby providing the faculty member under review with the opportunity to remedy the noted deficiency and to establish professional development as a goal.
• The faculty member, at the end of the years in which PIPs have been in place, has been evaluated not to have met the conditions of the PIPs in more than one year.

7. Performance Improvement Plan

BOT-24 requires the College to establish "procedures to create performance improvement plans (PIPs) for tenured faculty members who receive an overall annual review rating of 'not meeting productivity expectations' or 'unsatisfactory.'" Post-tenure review will provide feedback in the form of a written summary, performance rating(s) , and documentation of any concerns. If a performance rating of "Does not meet productivity expectations" or "Unsatisfactory productivity" is assigned, the faculty member shall have 12 months of opportunity to address the noted documentation of concerns in a Performance Improvement Plan before the commencement of the next annual review period.

1. Within 5 business days after receipt of the five-year review report by the faculty member, the Department Chair will meet with the faculty member to discuss ways that a rating of "does not meet productivity expectations" can be improved in the following 12 months.
   1. The faculty member may bring a proposed PIP to help shape the discussion.
   2. The faculty member may bring a trusted advisor to the meeting.
2. Within 5 business days of this meeting, the Department Chair will prepare a written summary of the meeting and its outcome, give the faculty member the opportunity to add a supplemental statement, and these will be sent by the Department Chair to the Executive Dean, who, with the faculty member and Department Chair, will develop a written PIP to address specific deficiencies.  This will be finalized and presented to the faculty member in writing, no later than one month following receipt of the annual review. 
3. As required by BOT-24, the plan must "list specific deficiencies to be addressed; define specific goals or outcomes necessary to remedy the deficiencies; outline the activities to be undertaken to achieve the necessary outcomes; identify institutional resources available to support the plan; set timelines for achieving goals and outcomes; and indicate the criteria for assessment in regular reviews of progress." 
4. As required by BOT-24, "The performance improvement plan will be submitted to the CAO for review. The CAO and Chancellor will discuss modifications and finalize the improvement plan."
5. The CAO will send the final performance improvement plan, in writing, to the faculty member, the Department Chair, and the Executive Dean.
6. As required by BOT-24, "The faculty member and department chair/unit head will meet regularly to review the faculty member's progress toward remedying deficiencies. The faculty member will provide end of semester progress reports to the department chair/unit head and to the dean."  These progress reports should include documentation of the activities that address issues identified in the PIP.
7. At the end of the 12-month period following the approval of the performance improvement plan by the CAO, the Department Chair will send a written report to the faculty member and to the Executive Dean, stating whether the faculty member has met the conditions of the PIP.  The Executive Dean will likewise provide a written statement about whether the faculty member has met the conditions of the PIP and will notify the faculty member and the Department Chair, in writing, of this determination.
8. The letters from the Department Chair and the Executive Dean will be sent to the CAO, which will make a final determination, in writing, about whether the faculty member has met the conditions of the PIP.

Appeal Processes for Unsatisfactory Rating and Appeal of a PIP Adjudication. As stated by BOT-24, if a faculty member has been rated as "unsatisfactory" in previous annual reviews and PIPs have been successfully implemented, these "can be used as evidence in the five-year post-tenure productivity review for the 'meets productivity' expectation."   In other words, if a PIP has been successfully implemented, the "unsatisfactory" or "does not meet expectations" designation will be removed from the faculty member's record and cannot be used in a five-year review.

Appeals Process for Five-Year Merit Review Ratings

If a faculty member would like to appeal any rating that is assigned in the Five-Year merit review process, they should produce a statement that outlines the nature of the appeal: violations of university policy, violations of college policies, violations of departmental review procedures or a bias or misinterpretation of the departmental review criteria.

1. The Department Chair will respond in writing to specific points in the faculty member's appeal within five days of receiving the appeal and revise the rating or indicate the reason for not revising the rating.
2. The Faculty Member may choose to continue the appeal. The Department Chair should convene an ad hoc committee of three faculty to review (only) specific claims cited in the appeal and produce a report for the Department Chair and the faculty member within two weeks of being notified. This action should either revise the rating or indicate the reason for not revising the rating.
3. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the process, they may request a full review as described below.

Appeals Process for Unsatisfactory Ratings.

Given the serious consequences of an "unsatisfactory" rating in a five-year review, the faculty member may request a rigorous appeal process. If a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory rating from the Departmental Chair's Letter and the rating is confirmed by the Executive Dean then the faculty member is entitled to a review at the College level (see section 8 for information about rights and procedures to appeal at the Campus and University Levels).

1. Determination of Reviewer. If the rating determines that a faculty member is deemed unsatisfactory, then the Executive Dean shall inform the Faculty Member and the Faculty Member's principal administrator and offer the option of review by the principal administrator or by the Executive Dean's Advisory Committee on Five-year Reviews (hereafter, CFR). Either the Faculty Member or the principal administrator may request that the review be conducted by the CFR.
   1. If the faculty member holds an appointment in more than one department, then the Department Chair who oversaw the Five-Year Review Process shall be designated the Department Chair of the department.
   2. Before initiating a review, the Faculty Member must be provided with a copy of the Departmental and Executive Dean's Five-Year Review Report and shall have the opportunity to provide a verbal or written response. This process should occur before the Executive Dean's report is forwarded to the Chief Academic Officer or recorded in the faculty member's permanent file.
   3. Committee on Five-Year Reviews (CFR). The CFR shall be composed of experienced faculty members with representation from each of the divisions of the core College. CFR members shall be selected and appointed by the College Policy Committee (CPC), in consultation with the EAD.
      1. Fifteen members of the CFR will represent the three disciplinary divisions of the College, with five members representing A&H, five representing S&H, and five representing N&M.
      2. Three additional representatives from each internal school that chooses to participate in this committee process shall be chosen by the CPC, and in consultation with the policy committee or analogue faculty governance body of each participating internal school.
      3. CFR members shall be appointed for a two-year term with the possibility of renewal.
      4. CFR members shall have a duty of confidentiality and of treating all parties to an appeal with respect and impartiality.
      5. CFR members shall recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest as defined by university policy, and the Faculty Member may ask that a CFR recuse themselves for cause.
      6. The CFR shall elect a chair from among its members who will be responsible for rotating reviewer assignments as outlined in Sections 2 and 3.
         
2. Preliminary review process. Before initiating a formal Review of the departmental five-year review process and resulting finding, the Reviewer shall conduct a preliminary review of relevant departmental criteria ensuring that it reflects the clarity and ease of interpretation demanded in BOT-24. The Reviewer shall also conduct a preliminary review of the departmental review process, and the faculty member's review packet, and the Chair's Review Letter and shall seek to confer with the Faculty Member toward an informal resolution of the appeal. The Faculty Member may involve a representative during any part of the preliminary review process.
   1. If the Reviewer is the CFR, then it will draw from its members a review panel consisting of three committee members, each from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the Faculty Member and their principal administrator. One empaneled reviewer must be from the same disciplinary division or internal school as the Faculty Member, but not from their home department.
   2. The Reviewer may view all documents and reports of previous stages of five annual reviews and the five-year review (defined in this Policy consistent with BOT 24 Policy) and notes on the discussions between the Chair and the Faculty Member (Review Letter) in the Five-Year Review file.
   3. The Reviewer shall determine whether there had been an adequate process of Departmental and Executive Dean Level Review consistent with BOT-24 and free from bias in substantive criteria, review process, or interpretation of faculty member accomplishments.
   4. The Reviewer will consider whether all mitigating influences on Faculty Member productivity including maternity and paternity leaves, health and bereavement leaves, leaves of absence without pay, and other leaves consistent with IU Policy on leaves and absences.
      1. If mitigating circumstances alter either the Faculty Member's eligibility for a five-year review or have not been considered in the previous department and Executive Dean's review process, then the Faculty Member will meet the Departmental Chair and Executive Dean to revise the Review timeline. A finding that the decision supports the initial review outcome must be communicated to the Faculty Member in writing.
      2. The faculty member and the reviewer may reach an informal resolution at any time during this review process.
         1. If an informal resolution is reached, then no sanction shall be imposed. A notation that the complaint was resolved informally shall be recorded, including a summary of the resolution that has been reached.
         2. The Review shall then be closed, and information to this effect shall be forwarded to the Faculty Member, Executive Dean of the College or the Dean of the relevant internal school.
         3. Informal resolutions shall become part of the Faculty Member's personnel file, and considered in subsequent promotion, annual reviews, or five-year reviews.
   5. The CFR process should be carried out at a reasonable speed, and whenever possible to enable the faculty member to define a PIP in agreement with the Chair and reviewed by the EAD to fulfill the obligations of an informal agreement, should conclude within three months of the initial complaint being forwarded to the reviewer.
      
3. Investigation process. If the preliminary review process finds FYR rating of unsatisfactory is inconsistent with the policy or out of step with College Policies, and if the reviewer and the faculty member have not reached an informal resolution, then the reviewer will initiate an investigation.
   1. If the Faculty Member's principal administrator conducted the preliminary review, then either the principal administrator or the Faculty Member may request that the CFR undertake the investigation. In such a case, the CFR shall draw from its members an investigation panel consisting of five committee members, ensuring that at least three members are from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the Faculty Member and their principal administrator. One empaneled member shall be from the same disciplinary division or internal school as the Faculty Member, but not from their home department.
   2. If a panel from the CFR conducted the preliminary review, then the initial three-person panel shall be expanded to five CFR members, ensuring that panel composition conforms to the requirements in point a. above. 
   3. The Faculty Member shall be provided with a copy of the preliminary review and shall have the opportunity to provide a written response.
   4. The Reviewer may interview departmental members, view departmental Five-year Review Guidelines, view all documents related to annual reviews including written explanation of previous concerns, and the Departmental and Executive Dean's Five-year review letter and ratings specified in the requirements of above, but the Reviewer is not required to conduct a formal hearing.
   5. The Reviewer shall determine whether the departmental guidelines and process of review have been fair and implemented as written, all requirements specified by BOT-24 and BOT-13, and all faculty work product has been considered without bias based on objective evidence.
   6. The investigation process should be carried out at a reasonable speed, and whenever possible, should conclude within three months of the preliminary review's communication that the initial rating should stand.

4. Concluding an Appeal. If the Reviewer determines at any point that no further review is warranted, then the Reviewer shall inform the faculty member, the ED and EAD, and, if the CFR is the Reviewer, the Faculty Member's principal administrator.

   Redress of an Unfair Unsatisfactory Process. If the investigation concludes that the Unsatisfactory rating has resulted from bias in the procedure (non-compliance with BOT-24 and BOT-13 regulations and College Policy on Annual Reviews, or requirements at the departmental or College levels) or if the reading of the faculty members' productivity across research, teaching, and service, has been unfair or overlooked important contributions, then the Reviewer should present the case to the CFR Review Committee for a rating score consistent with guidelines. Depending on that rating, the Faculty Member may then engage the PIP process.

   If the CFR's investigation upholds an Unsatisfactory Rating and concludes that the Review was consistent with all guidelines and regulations and constitutes a fair reading of the faculty's Five-Year Review Materials, then the Reviewer may recommend any appropriate action to the ED and EAD, taking into consideration the faculty member's sustained contribution to scholarship, departmental governance, the teaching mission of the university. Faculty members should be party to discussions of the Departmental, College, and University, that affect job responsibilities, changes in job title or rank, and employment.

9. How Can Faculty Appeal the Results of a Post-Tenure Review?

Appeals. Faculty Members who believe that their rights under this policy have been denied have the right to appeal under BL-ACA-D22 and ACA-17. If the faculty member requests further appeal after the conclusion of the College-level appeal, or if the sanctions imposed on the faculty member, then the Faculty Member shall submit their appeal to the Bloomington Faculty Board of Review.

APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terms

Annual Report – A faculty member uses Elements to provide data for the annual report.

Five Year Productivity Summary: A single page per productivity area (e.g. teaching, scholarship, and service) highlighting accomplishments and summarizing productivity over the previous five years.

Annual Review Letter– Department Chair evaluated faculty generated data and other data related to teaching etc. prior to the chair writing an annual review letter.

Post-Tenure Productivity Review Packets – The packet must include the Faculty CV, Five Year Productivity Summary, the last five Annual Review Letters and any supplemental materials forwarded to the Executive Dean

Post-Tenure Review – Evaluation of a tenured faculty member.

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – after an evaluation of a post-tenure review case, a determination of "not meeting expectation" or "unsatisfactory performance" will occasion the creation of a performance improvement plan.

APPENDIX B: Post-Tenure Review Timeline

The Executive Dean and Departmental Chair will ensure that the faculty member under review has sufficient time to formulate a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and/or launch a review process that allows for sufficient time to complete that plan successfully before further decisions are taken.

APPENDIX C: The Role of Discipline-Specific Criteria in Post-Tenure Reviews

Post-tenure reviews must employ the discipline-specific criteria established by the department or unit of the faculty member under review.  Criteria must clearly describe productivity expectations to measure sustained effort over the review period defined relative to comparable R1 University units. Review criteria should be commensurate with academic standards of peer institutions (BOT-24)." 

Each department is charged with developing "discipline-specific criteria" to assess productivity.  Departmental criteria must include disciplinary markers of sustained effort of research or creative activity, teaching, and service. Criteria must  "clearly describe(s) productivity expectations for tenured faculty members ... shall ... be clearly written such that a reasonable faculty member should not be uncertain or confused about what level of productivity or performance is expected to earn each performance rating" (BOT-24: Policy Statement, Annual Review, lines 24-26, 28-30).

Criteria must include disciplinary markers of sustained effort of research or creative activity (the process toward publication) as well as research or creative products (publication).

Discipline-specific criteria should reflect:

1. Expectations established in BOT-15: Academic Appointee Responsibilities and Conduct.
2. The structural limits on faculty capacity to teach and mentor graduate students, teach large classes, or otherwise meet criteria established by each unit.

Faculty member productivity ratings shall be based on the discipline-specific criteria that were in effect when the five-year review period began, unless the faculty member chooses to be reviewed under revised criteria.

The Process for Establishing Discipline Specific Criteria: Consistent with the goals of BOT-24, discipline-specific criteria should be established through an inclusive, transparent, and consultative process. Consistent with BOT-24 departments or units will form working groups in to draft criteria for five-year reviews consistent with disciplinary standards and present the faculty with proposed draft criteria for feedback." Department feedback should include a vote consistent with departmental guidelines unit-specific faculty governance structures. Department feedback should include a vote consistent with departmental guidelines unit-specific faculty governance structures. The same goals should be reflected in the process of Annual and Post-Tenure Reviews that include an ad-hoc committee for each faculty being reviewed or the departmental elected standing committee that conducts personnel recommendations. These bodies shall provide written reports to the Chair that inform the assessment.

Departmental criteria must be reviewed every three years and updated as needed.

Departmental criteria must be established at least twelve months prior to the next review period. The process for defining these criteria is defined in the College Guidelines for Annual Reviews.

Consistent with College Effort Allocation Guidelines, each unit or department can accept IU default effort allocation (or suggest a different department default effort allocation with a clear justification for approval) and should define a process for faculty members to revise individual effort allocation consistent with changes in responsibilities or circumstances. Effort allocation in teaching should reflect differential teaching loads consistent with the College Effort Allocation Guidelines. Each tenured faculty member is entitled to propose an alternative effort review allocation to the unit head. Departmental guidelines should establish a mutually agreeable timeline for individual negotiations to alter effort allocation. The annual deadline for submitting each individual faculty member's allocation is December 15 and that allocation will remain in effect for the next calendar year.

APPENDIX D: Other Important Policies to Consult
BOT-24: Post-Tenure Faculty Productivity and Annual Review
BOT 13:  Faculty and Librarian Annual Reviews
BL-ACA-E23
IU Policy on leaves and absences defined by VPFAA https://vpfaa.indiana.edu/faculty-affairs/leaves-absences/index.html
BL-ACA-F1 and BL-ACA-F2, FMLA