1    Preamble



2    Emporia State University is committed to recruiting only those faculty



3    who show clear promise of success in the academic setting.  The



4    University is committed to the principles of academic freedom and,



5    within those principles, to the system of tenure.  Tenure is an



6    important part of academic freedom, but does not accord freedom from



7    accountability.  Just as the University is committed to recruit

  

8    excellent faculty and to insure the excellence of their performance, so



9    too, is the University dedicated to faculty renewal and development. 



10   Thus the concept of regular, rigorous faculty review is a part of the



11   University's commitment to providing support to all its faculty. 



12   Therefore we resolve the following based on the definition passed by the



13   Faculty Senate in April, 1996 (FSB 95007) which reads:

  

14     Chronic low performance of a tenured faculty member is

      

15     demonstrated when the faculty member fails in his or her

      

16     professional capacity as identified in annual evaluations. 



17     Continued low performance, despite all assistance provided, may be



18     considered an adequate cause for dismissal.

  

19  I. Statement of Policy.

  

20   The Faculty Senate of Emporia State University hereby recognizes, as



21   outlined in the Faculty Handbook, that the relationship between a



22   faculty member and the University requires adequate performance of



23   certain duties by the faculty member.  Tenure, in its protection of



24   academic freedom, while it shields faculty from discriminatory, unfair,



25   arbitrary or capricious dismissal, is not designed to shield them from



26   the consequences of inadequate performance or non-performance of their

 

27   duties.

  

28   Every faculty member's performance is subject to review to determine



29   whether each faculty member has fulfilled his or her duties.  Sustained



30   failure of a faculty member to carry out his or her academic



31   responsibilities, despite the opportunities for University faculty



32   development or other appropriate interventions, is cause for

  

33   consideration of dismissal from Emporia State University, by due

  

34   process.

  



35   II.  Implementation

  

36    A.  Evaluation Process



37   The annual evaluation document used by each division will include a



38   statement of the overall acceptable level of performance that meets



39   faculty academic responsibilities, a provision for faculty development,

  

40   and a statement of a faculty member's right to due process in the event



41   any disagreement should arise in the course of the evaluation.  Each



42   division shall review its evaluation process at least once every five

 

43   years and any changes shall be adopted by a faculty vote and approved by



44   the Dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs.  A current copy of

 

45   each division's evaluation process shall be kept on file in the office

  

46   of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

  



47  B.  Individualized Expectations

  

48   Consistent with the Regents' policy, Emporia State University policy

 

49   provides for differential allocations of effort among tenured faculty in

 

50   the areas of their academic responsibilities.  The individual's

 

51   performance expectations for the period are determined by the allocation

  

52   of effort and the departmentally-established responsibilities in an

  

53   academic area.  These expectations will serve as the basis for the

  

54   individual's annual reviews.

  



55  C.  Evaluation

  

56   Each faculty member shall be evaluated annually by the division chair

  

57   using criteria and methods appropriate to that division for teaching,

  

58   scholarship, and service.  A committee of tenured faculty will conduct

  

59   an independent evaluation when a tenured faculty member has been

  

60   identified by the division chair as performing below divisional

  

61   expectations.  The evaluation shall be provided to the faculty member in

  

62   writing prior to its final adoption.

  

  

63   The faculty member will provide relevant information for the purposes of

  

64   evaluation.  Multiple sources of information used to evaluate the

  

65   teaching component will include students' ratings of instruction and

  

66   such other information as may be appropriate.

 

 

67   If the annual evaluation reveals that a faculty member's performance is

  

68   below divisional expectations, the written evaluation shall be specific

  

69   in describing the deficiencies and in suggesting methods for

  

70   improvement.  The division chair will also review the assignment of

  

71   differential effort with the faculty member and they will decide what

  

72   changes are appropriate and practical.  Changes in the distribution of

  

73   effort will be documented in the faculty member's personnel file.

  

  

74 D.   Appropriate Interventions, including Faculty Development Options.

  



75   Faculty development is the term used for the University's investment in

  

76   its faculty.  While primarily relied upon to promote development, it may

  

77   be utilized for corrective action.

  



78   If a division chair ascertains that a tenured faculty member's



79   performance seems to be failing to meet the divisional expectations, the

  

80   chair and the faculty member shall develop a written plan of methods to

  

81   improve the faculty member's performance.  The plan may include

  

82   appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as campus

  

83   opportunities for faculty continued renewal and development, or for

  

84   other appropriate interventions, such as counseling, medical leave, or a

  

85   change in teaching assignments.  The division chair may call upon the

  

86   University administration for assistance in constructing such a plan,

  

87   including provision for additional resources, where needed.  A faculty

  

88   member may reject any plan recommended to aid performance levels, but

  

89   the faculty member must understand that a sustained overall failure to

  

90   meet divisional expectations is a basis for dismissal.

  

  

91   E.  Determination That Divisional Expectations Are Not Being Met.

  

92   If a tenured faculty member has been informed that his or her overall



93  performance fails to meet the divisional expectations, the faculty



94  member may request a review by a faculty committee designated to hear

  

95  such matters in the School or College.  The review committee will issue

  

96  a non-binding recommendation on the appropriateness of this conclusion

  

97  to the division chair.  The division chair may change the evaluation

  

98  after receiving the committee's decision, or may choose not to do so. 

  

99  In any event, the report of the committee will become a permanent part

  

100 of the faculty member's personnel file within the division and shall be

  

101 available to the faculty member.

  

 

102  Division chairs shall consult annually with the Dean, and Deans shall



103  consult annually with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, on the

  

104  progress of any faculty member who falls within the category of overall

  

105  failure to meet divisional expectations.

  



106 F.  Recommendation for Dismissal.



107  Based upon the judgment that there has been a sustained overall failure,



108  three consecutive years or four out of six years,  to meet divisional



109  expectations, the division chair and the divisional review committee may

  

110  recommend to the Dean that a tenured faculty member be dismissed.  The

  

111  Dean may forward such  recommendations to the Vice President for



112  Academic Affairs.  In making this determination, the Division Chair and



113  review committee must state the nature of the failure to meet the

 

114  divisional expectations, the reasons for this failure, the number of

  

115  years that the faculty member has failed to meet divisional

  

116  expectations, the level of discernible improvement in the faculty

  

117  member's performance after being notified of any failure in performance,

  

118  and the extent to which the faculty member has complied with the terms

  

119  of any plan developed to improve the faculty member's performance.  If

  

120  the Vice President for Academic Affairs, upon reviewing the

  

121  recommendations, agrees with these recommendations, he/she shall

 

122  recommend to the President that the faculty member be dismissed.  If the

  

123  President agrees and recommends dismissal, the faculty member has the

  

124  right to initiate formal grievance proceedings.

  

  

125  Should any recommendation to dismiss be brought against a tenured

  

126  faculty member based on grounds of sustained failure to meet divisional

  

127  expectations, the reports of the review committee(s), the annual written

  

128  evaluations of the division chair concerning the faculty member, any

 

129  outside evaluations, and any germane written response by  the faculty

  

130  member to the charges shall be made available to the Grievance

  

131  Committee.

  

  

132  The finding of sustained failure must not abuse academic freedom or be



133  used as a cover for discriminatory, unfair, arbitrary or capricious

 

134  dismissal.  If, on the basis of the faculty member's presentation of the

 

135  evidence, the Grievance Committee concludes that such factors were

  

136  considered in formulating the recommendation to dismiss, the Grievance

  

137  Committee shall recommend to the President that the proceeding to

 

138  dismiss be terminated.