{
    "document_id": 15218,
    "page": 262,
    "width_pt": 612,
    "height_pt": 792,
    "rotation": 0,
    "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
    "engine": "paddleocr_vl",
    "source_run_id": 15336,
    "item_count": 5,
    "counts_by_type": {
        "text": 5
    },
    "build_ms": 1,
    "items": [
        {
            "id": "p262.1",
            "order": 1,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 53.28,
                "t": 734.64,
                "r": 543.6,
                "b": 707.04
            },
            "text": "removal mechanism for a chair who is judged by faculty as failing to maintain or enforce appropriate standards."
        },
        {
            "id": "p262.2",
            "order": 2,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 53.76,
                "t": 693.6,
                "r": 543.12,
                "b": 650.64
            },
            "text": "4. Lack of regular post-tenure peer evaluation. As is the case with annual review of chairs, the regular five-year cycle of having tenured faculty undergo peer review is simply not taking place with any consistency."
        },
        {
            "id": "p262.3",
            "order": 3,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 53.28,
                "t": 638.16,
                "r": 543.84,
                "b": 540.48
            },
            "text": "Recommendation: Have the Provost enforce the five-year peer review cycle and make it a more rigorous process akin to applying for tenure and promotion. This process would follow the published tenure and promotions calendar. The process would involve not only classroom observation but an examination of the faculty member's relevant materials by both the Unit Tenure and Promotions Committee and the division chair. Should both agree on the candidate's deficiency, the post-tenure process would begin, with any disagreement being decided by the University Tenure and Promotion Committee."
        },
        {
            "id": "p262.4",
            "order": 4,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 53.52,
                "t": 528.24,
                "r": 556.56,
                "b": 485.04
            },
            "text": "5. Post-tenure review applies only to teaching effectiveness. Without any performance incentive like merit pay, which has not been given in years, there is simply nothing to stop any faculty member from refusing to serve on committees or engage in professional development."
        },
        {
            "id": "p262.5",
            "order": 5,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 53.52,
                "t": 472.56,
                "r": 557.04,
                "b": 401.76
            },
            "text": "Recommendation: As part of the above peer evaluation process, service and scholarship will also be considered by the Unit Tenure and Promotions Committee and division chair. When clear and persistent deficiencies in these categories are noted, the faculty member will have quantifiable benchmarks set for remediation of these deficiencies. Failure to meet such benchmarks will be considered grounds for disciplinary action up to and including dismissal for dereliction of duty."
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}