This policy is designed to provide definitive guidance to units in supporting tenured faculty to increase their productivity and to identify and address problems in performance.
This policy builds on the current system for conducting regular performance or "merit" reviews, as defined in AR II-1.0-5, of tenured faculty for purposes of salary increases. It requires the following:
A Consequential Review process must be instituted for any faculty member receiving successive unsatisfactory performance on "merit" reviews [", conducted on the regular schedule for the unit"], in a "significant area of work". For the purposes of this policy, a significant area of work is defined as a Distribution of Effort Agreement greater than 20% in the areas of instruction, research or service. The review is summative in nature and requires a plan to improve performance within a specified period.
Upon recommendation of the department chair and approval of the dean, a faculty member subject to evaluation under this plan may be exempted if there are extenuating circumstances (such as health problems). A decision by the chair not to recommend such exemption may be appealed to the Dean. The next statement represents a provision that was part of the Senateís version. It restores a primary mechanism used by the Arts & Sciences College in resolving performance matters. "A further option that could exempt a faculty member from a Consequential Review is a substantial change in the distribution of effort (DOE); such a change would imply assignment of new duties to the faculty member and would need to be approved by the chair and the dean." A Consequential Review will not be undertaken until the final disposition of any appeal.
The Dean shall notify the faculty member and department chair of the initiation of a Consequential Review process and of the procedures of the review.
For faculty selected for Consequential Review, the department chair shall prepare a review dossier in consultation with the faculty member. The faculty member has the right and obligation to provide for the review dossier all the documents, materials, and statements he or she believes to be relevant and necessary for the review, and all materials submitted shall be included in the dossier. Ordinarily, such a dossier would include at least the following: an up-to-date vita, a teaching portfolio, and a statement on current research or creative work. The chair shall add to the dossier any further materials (prior evaluations, other documents, etc.) he or she deems relevant, in every case providing the faculty member with a copy of each item added. The faculty member shall have the right to add any material, including statements and additional documents, at any time during the review process.
The Consequential Review will be conducted by the department chair, or at the request of the faculty member by a three-member ad hoc committee of tenured faculty members including one member selected by the Dean, one member chosen by the faculty member, one member selected by the college faculty.
Problems with the language of the proposed AR in the paragraph above are:
"The Consequential Review will be conducted by either
The faculty member will select the reviewing agent from these three options. The reviewing agent will create a development plan designed to remedy the deficiencies indicated in the performance reviews. "
It is not the purpose of the Consequential Review to evaluate the performance of the faculty member but rather to develop a plan to remedy the deficiencies indicated in the performance reviews. It is the responsibility of the department chairperson to recommend the plan that has been developed to the Dean for approval and to monitor the implementation of the plan approved by the Dean. Ideally, the plan should grow out of an iterative collaboration among the faculty member, department chair and dean. The review should be completed within 60 days of notification of the initiation of the review.
It is the faculty member's obligation to assist in the development of a meaningful and effective plan and to make a good faith effort to implement the plan once it is adopted. In the event that the faculty member objects to the terms of the plan, the faculty member may appeal to the appropriate chancellor. Once the appeal has been resolved, the resulting plan will be implemented.
The plan must:
1) Identify the specific deficiencies to be addressed
2) Define specific goals or outcomes that are needed to remedy the deficiencies
3) Outline the activities that are to be undertaken to achieve the needed outcomes
4) Set timelines for accomplishing the activities and achieving the outcomes
5) Indicate the criteria for annual progress reviews
6) Identify the level and source of any funding which may be required to implement the development plan.
The faculty member and his or her department chair should meet each semester to review the faculty member's progress towards remedying the deficiencies. A progress report will be forwarded to the dean.
Further evaluation of the faculty member within the regular faculty performance evaluation processes of the University may draw upon the faculty member's progress in achieving the goals set out in the plan.
When the objectives of the plan have been fully met, or in any case no later than three years after the start of the plan, a final report will be made by the department chair to the faculty member and the dean. The department chair shall provide the faculty member with a copy of the report before sending the report to the dean and the faculty member will be provided an opportunity to comment on the report if he or she wishes.
The above paragraph is at considerable variance with the policy the University Senate approved and is unacceptable to UK-AAUP. Up to this point the proposed AR has made a good start of providing peer review of the faculty memberís performance. The language above basically turns the determination of the fate of the faculty member over to the administration with no further peer review. UK-AAUP has seen enough cases of administrators attempting to destroy faculty members so that we consider this a deal breaker.
The language below represents what UK-AAUP believes to be an acceptable compromise between the University Senate version and the administration's version:
"When the objectives of the plan have been met, or in any case no later than three years after the start of the plan, a final report will be prepared by the department chair and given to the faculty member. The faculty member will be provided an opportunity to comment on the report if he or she wishes. If the chair states that the objectives of the plan have not been fully met and the faculty member disagrees, (assuming the chair did not initially develop the plan) the three-member ad hoc committee of tenured faculty members that originally developed the plan shall be reconvened. If a person who was part of that three-member ad hoc committee is no longer available to serve, his or her successor shall be chosen in the same manner as the original person was chosen. The three-member ad hoc committee shall prepare a written evaluation of the faculty member's performance in meeting the objectives of the plan. The chair and the three-member ad hoc committee will then meet and try to reach a consensus for a report to the dean. In the event that no consensus is reached, both the chair's report and the report of the three-member ad hoc committee shall be forwarded to the dean, together with any written comments that the faculty member wishes to add."
If the matter should go into appeal within the University or to the legal arena, a faculty member unfairly under attack would have the report of the three-member ad hoc committee to fall back on if it favored him or her. If the faculty member truly did not perform the three-member ad hoc committee will probably back up the chair. What absolutely won't wash is completely removing peer review and turning the process over to the administration after the faculty member has attempted to complete the plan mapped out.
UK-AAUP suggests completely eliminating the paragraph below. The Senate version had a fair amount of language that put the matter of dismissal for cause in context and was consistent with the idea that the purpose of the TFRDP is constructive in nature. It also made clear that dismissal for cause was carefully prescribed as a separate process. (It is embodied in KRS 164.230: a faculty member may be dismissed only for reasons of incompetence, neglect of or refusal to perform duties, or for immoral conduct.)
Remove: In those cases where serious deficiencies continue to exist after the Consequential Review plans are completed, dismissal for cause procedures may be initiated.
Each academic unit may create a process for a Developmental Review of tenured faculty, consistent with criteria in AR II-1.0-1, that includes setting individual faculty goals in collaboration with unit chairs, deans, and senior faculty colleagues. These reviews should be incorporated into the current performance review process for tenured faculty to minimize administrative burden.
Each Chancellor and Dean shall develop a process for allocating additional support funds in appropriate cases to provide support to faculty members undertaking a Consequential or Developmental Review.
Each Dean shall prepare annually a summary report on cases resulting from the implementation of the Tenured Faculty Review and Development Policy in that College and transmit the report to the Chancellor.
To return to the main page, click here