29.5 Tenure-Track Unacceptable Performance Warranting Termination

  1. Scope. These procedures apply when the university alleges that the performance of duty of a faculty member has fallen below the applicable standard of performance to such an extent and duration that termination is warranted. These procedures may be invoked following a regular 5-year post-tenure peer review and when reasonable efforts have been made by university, collegiate, and departmental officers to resolve concerns about unacceptable faculty performance in accordance with the university's policies governing post-tenure performance. Such policies include but are not limited to annual evaluations for merit pay, subsequent post-tenure peer review(s), and other remedies short of termination.
  2. Initial actions by the dean. Any complaint that a tenured faculty member’s performance warrants action under this policy shall be brought to the provost by the dean of the college of the faculty member’s tenure home. The collegiate dean or designee may make such a complaint only after formal review of the record of the faculty member's performance according to the following procedures. In a college without departments, the dean shall perform all functions assigned to the DEO in these procedures.
    1. The DEO or dean’s designee, in consultation with the collegiate dean, will appoint an ad-hoc review committee consisting of at least three faculty members, the majority of whom must be from the faculty member’s department/unit and all of whom must be at or above the faculty member’s rank. If the faculty member has a joint appointment, the committee shall have representatives from all respective departments. The dean shall provide the faculty member written notification that a request for a review of performance under this policy has been made.
    2. Compiling the record. The DEO shall compile the record, which shall include all previous post-tenure annual and peer reviews of performance, as well as the faculty member's corresponding responses and provide a copy to the ad hoc committee and the faculty member.
    3. Action by the committee. The ad-hoc review committee will have the specific charge to determine:
      1. whether or not the faculty member's performance of duty has been, for a significant period, substantially below the standard of performance required of an individual in the position.
      2. whether the written record of the faculty member’s performance and any improvement plans demonstrate that the university provided adequate opportunity for the faculty member to correct their performance of duty deficiencies. The faculty member’s written record may include, but is not limited to, post-tenure review, annual evaluations, other methods of peer evaluation, DEO and/or dean performance improvement plans and outcomes, and any responses to those reports by the faculty member.
      3. Within 20 business days of appointment, the ad-hoc committee will review the faculty member’s written record of performance, will prepare a written report that summarizes their findings, and make a recommendation concerning whether the faculty member's performance of duties warrants further action. This report will become part of the record. The committee may obtain and use both internal and external assessments of a faculty member's teaching, scholarship, and service; the assessors’ identifying information will not be included in the report. The written report must include an explanation of the standards used to judge the faculty member's performance and the basis for determining any conclusions or recommendations. The compiled record will be sent to the DEO, who will promptly provide a copy of the report to the faculty member.
    4. The faculty member’s DEO will provide an independent written evaluation of the faculty member’s performance of duty within 10 business days of receiving the committee’s report. The DEO shall also provide to the dean either support for the committee’s assessment or the rationale for a difference of opinion with that assessment. The DEO’s report shall become part of the record. The compiled record will then be sent to the dean.
    5. All reports and evaluations, redacted to protect individuals, will be provided to the faculty member by the dean. The faculty member will have 20 business days to submit a response to the written reports and evaluations.
  3. Formal action by the dean. After receiving all of the above information, the dean provides a written evaluation, using the prior evaluative reports and reviews for guidance.
    1. If the dean determines that the materials do not substantiate a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the dean shall notify the faculty member and the DEO and the matter shall be closed.
    2. If the dean determines that the materials substantiate a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the dean shall submit to the provost in writing a complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination. The dean's complaint shall include the entire written record and response from the faculty member (collectively, the record). The dean’s complaint also shall describe the efforts that have been made to resolve the matter within the established procedures of the college in question.
    3. The Provost will send a copy of the complaint to the faculty member. The faculty member may respond to the dean’s determination in writing to the provost within 10 business days.
  4. Formal action by the Provost.
    1. On receipt of the dean's complaint of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination, the Provost shall determine whether:
      1. good faith efforts have been made by collegiate and departmental officers to resolve concerns in a manner mutually acceptable to all parties.
      2. the record (s) reasonably substantiates the complaint that the faculty member's performance of duty has fallen below the applicable standard of performance to such an extent and duration that consideration of termination is warranted. If the Provost determines that the record does not reasonably substantiate the complaint, the provost shall return the complaint to the college with an explanation for that determination.
    2. If the Provost determines that the record reasonably substantiates unacceptable performance by the faculty member such that termination is warranted, the Provost shall:
      1. send to the presiding officer a copy of the dean’s complaint and a formal charge of unacceptable performance of duty warranting termination against the faculty member; and
      2. send to the faculty member a copy of both items referenced above, together with a notice that the matter will proceed to the hearing process pursuant to these procedures.
    3. Hearing process. To proceed with the hearing process, the Provost must initiate proceedings under the Judicial Procedures in III-29.7.