The University’s faculty members should be curious, engaged thinkers who advance the University mission to develop the whole person through their work in academic disciplines. Their collective professional development, scholarship, and service combine to create a transformative learning environment both inside and outside of the classroom. Furthermore, as a teacher-scholar, each faculty member has a unique role to play in creating the kinds of exceptional learning experiences that are a hallmark of a Lenoir-Rhyne University education.
To create those exceptional learning experiences, the University supports faculty members’ professional development, scholarship, and service. These activities may be designed to improve course content or course design, to spur student research and scholarship, to create experiential learning opportunities, and so forth. Faculty members may also model disciplinary inquiry for students through their professional endeavors. Finally, the University encourages faculty members in the pursuit of professional opportunities that will improve the campus or community environment.
Each faculty member is expected to pursue professional development and provide service to the University, as outlined below, so that they may more fully serve the University mission of developing the whole person through exceptional learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom.
Defining Teaching Excellence
Lenoir-Rhyne University recognizes that teaching excellence is the heart of the University’s mission and the primary responsibility of the faculty. It is characterized by a commitment to student learning, pedagogical innovation, and continuous improvement.
Key Dimensions of Teaching Excellence:
- Student-Centered Learning: Effective teachers create a learning environment focused on student needs and fostering active engagement. They employ diverse pedagogical approaches that cater to different learning styles and promote intellectual curiosity.
- Inclusive Excellence: Excellent teachers are committed to creating an inclusive and equitable classroom where all students feel valued, respected, and supported. They actively work to dismantle systemic barriers and create opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to succeed.
- Reflective Practice: Excellent teachers engage in ongoing reflection on their teaching practices, seeking feedback from students and colleagues to identify areas for improvement. They are committed to continuous learning and professional development to enhance their pedagogical skills and knowledge.
- Mentorship and Community: Excellent teachers foster a supportive and collaborative learning community within and beyond the classroom. They mentor students, providing guidance and support for their academic and personal growth. They also contribute to a University culture that values teaching excellence and promotes peer support.
Supporting Teaching Excellence
The University is dedicated to providing resources and support to help faculty members achieve teaching excellence. The Office of Academic Affairs and the Center for Teaching and Learning are available for teaching support including but not exclusive to the following:
- Professional Development: The University provides opportunities for faculty members to participate in workshops, seminars, and other activities focused on pedagogical innovation and effective teaching practices both internally and externally.
- Peer Support: Outside of required peer review for annual evaluation, the University encourages opportunities for peer support through classroom observation and feedback.
- Recognition and Rewards: The University celebrates and acknowledges outstanding teaching contributions through teacher-scholar reassignment, faculty development funds, CTL mini-grants, internal support for submission to external grants related to teaching, and other forms of recognition.
By fostering a culture that values and supports teaching excellence, the University affirms its commitment to student learning and success as the foundation of its mission.
Defining Professional Development
At Lenoir-Rhyne, professional development is a cornerstone of faculty support and is crucial for individual growth, pedagogical innovation, and the advancement of the University’s mission. It encompasses a wide range of opportunities and activities that enhance faculty members’ knowledge, skills, and excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service.
Key Dimensions of Professional Development
- Pedagogical Innovation: Engaging in activities that enhance teaching practices, explore new pedagogical approaches, and promote student learning. This can include, for example, workshops, seminars, conferences, and observing peers in their classrooms.
- Technology and Innovation: Acquiring new skills and knowledge related to technology, online teaching, and digital scholarship. This can include, for example, workshops on online course design, digital tools for research, and innovative technologies for teaching and learning.
- Leadership and Service: Developing skills and knowledge related to leadership, mentoring, advising, and service within the University and the broader community. This can include, for example, leadership training programs, workshops on committee effectiveness, and participation in professional organizations.
- Personal Growth: Engaging in activities that promote personal and professional wellbeing, this can include, for example, workshops on work-life integration, emotional intelligence, conflict management, and promotes a welcoming campus environment.
Supporting Professional Development
The University is committed to providing resources and support for faculty members’ professional development internally, through the Center for Teaching and Learning, Faculty Development Day opportunities, and externally. This includes:
- Funding Opportunities: The University provides funding for conference travel, professional memberships, workshops, and other development activities.
- Time Allocation: The University recognizes and values professional development activities in workload allocation and teacher-scholar reassignment.
- Access to Resources: The University provides access to online resources, workshops, and training programs that support faculty development.
By investing in faculty professional development, the University cultivates a dynamic and engaged faculty community dedicated to continuous improvement, innovation, and teaching excellence, scholarship, and service.
Defining Service
At Lenoir-Rhyne, service to the University is a vital aspect of faculty responsibility and contributes to the overall wellbeing and advancement of the institution. It encompasses a wide range of activities that support the University’s mission, enhance the student experience, and foster a thriving academic community.
Key Dimensions of Service to the University:
- College Service: Contributing to the effective functioning of academic colleges through participation in committees, curriculum development, program review, and other college initiatives.
- University-Wide Service: Serving on University-wide committees, task forces, councils, or standing committees that address institutional priorities, policies, and strategic initiatives.
- Mentorship and Advising: Providing guidance and support to students, including academic advising, mentoring student organizations, and supporting undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. For more information about academic advising, see 4.1.E Faculty Role in Academic Advising.
- Community Engagement: Connecting the University with the broader community through outreach activities, partnerships, and service-learning initiatives.
- Professional Service: Contributing to the academic discipline and profession through peer review, editorial work, presentations, and leadership in professional organizations.
Recognizing and Valuing Service
The University is dedicated to recognizing and valuing the diverse service contributions of faculty. This includes:
- Workload Considerations: The deans work to ensure that service assignments are equitably distributed.
- Evaluation and Promotion: Service contributions are acknowledged and valued in annual reviews and promotion and tenure decisions as part of the Professional Pathway.
By fostering a culture that values and supports service to the University, the University strengthens its commitment to shared governance, student success, and community engagement as integral components of its mission.
Defining Scholarship
While the University does not require that faculty members publish or engage in scholarship, it is important that such effort related to the Teacher-Scholar Model be appropriately recognized and rewarded. Scholarship can encompass a broad range of activities that contribute to the advancement of new knowledge and is a choice as part of the Professional Pathway.
Research, scholarship, and creative endeavors should provide a transformational experience for students through their direct inclusion and/or inform and enhance classroom experiences. The framework for the teacher-scholar model related to scholarship is based on Ernest Boyer’s classification of scholarly activity. The key dimensions of scholarship in alignment with Boyer’s model are:
- Research and Discovery: Engaging in systematic investigation and analysis to generate new knowledge, insights, and understanding. This can include conducting original research, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, presenting at conferences, and seeking external funding.
- Creative Endeavors: Producing original creative works that contribute to the artistic, cultural, and intellectual landscape. This can include composing music, creating visual art, writing fiction or poetry, developing innovative performances, and engaging in other forms of creative expression.
- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL): Investigating and reflecting on teaching practices to enhance student learning and contribute to the field of pedagogy. This can involve conducting research on teaching methods, publishing pedagogical articles, and presenting at SoTL conferences.
- Scholarship of Engagement: Applying scholarly expertise to address community needs and contribute to the public good. This can include community-based research, service-learning projects, and collaborations with community partners.
- Digital Scholarship: Utilizing digital tools and technologies to advance research, teaching, and creative expression. This can include creating digital archives, developing online exhibits, and engaging in online scholarly communities.
- Scholarly Growth: Pursuing activities that advance research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. This can include, for example, attending conferences, participating in workshops, collaborating with colleagues, and seeking external funding opportunities.
Supporting Scholarship
The University is committed to providing resources and support for faculty scholarship. Examples include:
- Funding Opportunities: The University provides support for research, creative projects, and scholarly activities. Faculty can access internal funding opportunities like the Allotment for Professional Development (APD) and Faculty Development Funds (FDF). Grant writing support is also available. Additionally, the University partners with external organizations to provide further opportunities. These organizations include the Appalachian College Association (ACA), the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC), and the North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities (NCICU).
- Time Allocation: The University recognizes and values scholarship in the Professional Pathway.
- Mentorship and Collaboration: The University fosters a culture of mentorship and collaboration to support external grant proposals.
- Access to Resources: The University provides access to research databases, libraries, technology, and other resources that facilitate scholarly work.
By cultivating a vibrant culture of scholarship, the University encourages intellectual curiosity, innovation, and the pursuit of knowledge as essential components of its mission and values.
The University recognizes the crucial role faculty play in guiding students’ academic journeys. This section outlines the responsibilities and expectations associated with faculty advising, emphasizing the importance of student support, ethical conduct, and adherence to University policies.
Faculty Academic Advisor Assignment
- Every student at Lenoir-Rhyne University is assigned a faculty academic advisor when their major is known to The Office of Academic Affairs.
- Undergraduate students who have not yet declared a major are assigned a professional academic advisor specially trained to work with exploratory students.
- Graduate students are assigned a faculty academic advisor upon matriculation into their program.
Faculty Academic Advisor Responsibilities
Faculty academic advisors are expected to:
- Utilize advising technology: Use and teach students to use this software for degree planning, tracking progress, and improving communication with their advisor. This promotes student success and retention by encouraging student ownership of their academic journey, enabling proactive advising, and providing valuable data analytics for university seats management.
- Availability and Responsiveness: Be available to students throughout the academic year for academic advising and support. Respond promptly to student requests for meetings and communicate any periods of unavailability (e.g., holidays, sabbaticals) clearly, indicating who students should contact in their absence (e.g., dean, chair).
- Student-Centered Approach: Actively listen to student concerns, respect individual values and choices, and empower students to make informed decisions about their academic paths.
- Proactive Communication: Communicate their availability and preferred modes of communication to advisees at the beginning of each semester and as new advisees are assigned.
- Registration Support: Be available to meet with students throughout the academic year to develop plans for progress to degree and registration. Advising does not need to be limited to the few weeks before registration. Where required, authorize students to register after advising sessions.
- Program Knowledge: Be knowledgeable about the academic programs they advise, including degree requirements, course sequencing, and prerequisites. Seek clarification from deans, chairs, or program directors when necessary.
- Policy Awareness: Be familiar with academic policies and procedures outlined in the University Catalog, including those related to course repeats, satisfactory academic progress, academic probation, course loads, adding/dropping courses, auditing, directed study, dual enrollment, independent study, satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading, testing out of courses, advanced placement credit, transfer credit, and FERPA regulations.
- Campus Resource Knowledge: Be knowledgeable about campus academic and support resources and refer students to appropriate personnel or services as needed.
- Documentation: Maintain accurate and up-to-date records of student progress toward degree completion, including academic plans and any substitutions discussed. Provide detailed notes from each advising session. These records ensure transparency to students and advising continuity, especially when students change majors or advisors.
- Academic Planning: Update progress toward degree documentation each semester, confirm the appropriateness of students’ upcoming schedules, and ensure successful completion of prerequisites.
Evaluation of Advising
Faculty members who receive credit toward their Professional Pathway for academic advising will be evaluated on their advising performance during annual reviews, continuation, promotion, and tenure reviews.
Registration Policies and Procedures
- Priority Registration: The priority registration period is typically scheduled shortly after midterm of the preceding semester.
- Academic Advising Meetings: All students are required to meet with their faculty academic advisor for priority registration.
- Course Selection and Authorization: Advisors assist students with course selection and authorize registration in the student information system.
- Faculty Academic Advisor Access: Faculty academic advisors and deans have access to student advising records and registration authorization.
- Record Keeping: Advisors are required to keep records of advising sessions as notes.
The University faculty workload assignments are the responsibility of the academic dean in collaboration with The Office of Academic Affairs. In the spirit of recognizing individual strengths and the interests of faculty members, as well as the needs of the institution, faculty members are assigned workload responsibilities related to teaching excellence and the Professional Pathway (see 4.3.B.1 Requirements and Evidence: Teaching Excellence and the Professional Pathway).
Faculty members are contracted to teach a total of 24 credit hours within the academic year. Specific course assignments will be determined by the academic deans, aligning with program needs and faculty expertise. Deans will strive to ensure equitable distribution of teaching workload within programs, recognizing that class size, the number of different preparations, and grading complexity may contribute to workload. While equitable workload distribution is a primary goal, variations may occur due to fluctuating academic needs and resource availability. Deans will work to balance these factors within program constraints. This process is overseen by the Office of Academic Affairs, who collaborates with the academic deans to ensure consistency and transparency in workload assignments. Faculty members are encouraged to discuss any workload concerns with their respective deans.
Administrative reassignment will be determined annually in consultation with the deans and provost. Faculty members may also apply for a one-semester teacher-scholar reassignment from teaching to engage in additional scholarship, service, or professional development.
Exceptional Circumstances
The University has a responsibility to manage its resources to ensure fiscal responsibility. When disruptions to normal campus operations occur, the University must make decisions designed to protect the University’s financial health. Examples of these situations include hurricanes, floods, campus shootings, tornadoes, global pandemics, etc. Results from these events may cause a loss of enrollment, reduction in revenue, and unbudgeted and increased expenditures.
During these times, the administration and/or Board of Trustees may find it necessary to impose a variety of measures to ensure the University maintains its fiscal viability. This may include a temporary revision from the normal faculty workload model. In these situations, the provost works with the deans to implement initiatives to manage budgets accordingly.
Definition and Awarding of Credit
In following the SACSCOC Credit Hour policy statement, the University uses the Carnegie Unit, which informs the following requirements: (i) For standard lecture-type classes, faculty members must provide a minimum of 750 minutes of direct instruction per credit hour (including the final exam period); (ii) This instruction can occur face to face, online, or as a combination, following the schedule established by the dean; (iii) Additionally, the faculty member must assign the average student at least 100 minutes of out-of-class work for every 50 minutes of direct instruction; and (iv) for laboratory sessions, internships, practica, studio experiences, and other academic activities leading to credit, faculty members must ensure an equivalent workload to that outlined for standard lecture-type classes.
In rare cases, faculty members may be required to undertake workload assignments that exceed standard workload. Faculty members assigned an approved overload in teaching are entitled to overload pay outlined below.
Faculty Overload and Directed Study Compensation Policy
To maintain high-quality instruction and reasonable workloads, full-time faculty members are discouraged from teaching overloads. However, when necessary, overload compensation is provided for teaching beyond the standard 24-credit-hour load. Overloads are generally limited to one course per semester (including courses taught at other institutions) and require approval from the faculty member’s dean and the provost. The Office of Academic Affairs retains final authority on overload approvals and compensation in connection with the same.
Overload Compensation:
- Compensation is paid at the current per-credit-hour rate.
- Overload compensation is paid in the spring semester based on the full academic year’s teaching load.
Directed Study Compensation:
- Directed studies, internships, and honors theses require pre-approval from the dean and provost.
- Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis for exceptional circumstances, such as student scheduling conflicts, low-enrollment required courses, or unique student needs.
- Compensation is not provided for directed studies if the same course is offered as part of the faculty member’s regular teaching load.
- The number of directed studies per faculty member is limited to two preparations per semester.
- Faculty members must provide students in directed studies courses with a comprehensive syllabus and ensure the directed study meets the same learning outcomes as the equivalent course.
- Compensation for directed studies may be suspended under extraordinary financial circumstances.
Directed Study Compensation Rate:
- Faculty members receive 0.11 credit overload per credit hour generated. (For example, a three-hour directed study for one student would compensate at .11 x 3 x the current overload/adjunct credit hour rate.)
- In cases in which a full-time faculty member may have an unusually small enrollment of students in a given semester, The Office of Academic Affairs reserves the authority to apply directed study credit hours toward fulfilling normal load while not providing additional compensation.
Course Enrollment and Teaching Load Policy
The University is committed to providing a high-quality educational experience while using resources responsibly. To achieve this, the University actively manages course enrollment and workloads, ensuring a diverse curriculum and effective faculty workload.
Ideal Class Size and Specialized Courses:
To promote optimal learning environments and effective use of faculty members’ time, classes should generally aim for a substantial enrollment. However, the University recognizes the value of specialized or unique courses that may attract smaller numbers of students. While these courses may have lower enrollment, classes with fewer than 10 students require special permission from the dean and The Office of Academic Affairs. The Office of Academic Affairs will continue to work with deans and the faculty to minimize the need for any regular class to have enrollment below 10 students.
Prorated Credit for Small Sections: When low-enrolled courses are necessary and remain open, workload credit is prorated to reflect the faculty member’s commitment and effort.
- 5 students: 85% of standard load
- 4 students: 70% of standard load
- 3 students: 50% of standard load
- Fewer than 3 students: directed study rate
A strong faculty evaluation and development program benefits both the University and individual faculty members. The evaluation and development program provides valuable data for decisions regarding continuation, promotion, and tenure, while also recognizing outstanding achievements and areas for improvement.
This process offers faculty a chance to set goals for professional development and reach their full potential. Regular evaluations create a feedback loop that encourages continuous growth and improvement, ultimately benefiting both the individual and the University.
Full-time faculty members’ performance will be evaluated through two distinct but complementary processes: 1) through an annual performance evaluation system; and 2) through a formal peer-reviewed system regarding continuation, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.
This section outlines the annual evaluation process for faculty members whose primary responsibility is teaching. It does not apply to the president, provost, assistant provosts, academic deans, professional librarians, or faculty with extensive reassigned time for administrative duties. These roles have separate evaluation procedures in place.
The University annual faculty evaluation process is designed to encourage the continuing innovation and improvement of faculty members. This process aligns individual development with the University’s Teacher-Scholar Model and strategic plan. Through the annual faculty evaluation, the University affirms exemplary work that earns ratings of “accomplished” or “distinguished,” quality work that earns a rating of “proficient,” and the University indicates work that does not meet expectations, earning ratings of “developing” or “fails to meet expectations.” In all instances, the University identifies areas for improvement. This evaluation process is intended to cultivate continuous improvement and to promote and support the development of faculty members and the University’s educational programs to their full potential. If a faculty member receives a rating of “fails to meet expectation” in all areas of their annual evaluation, a comprehensive review by the Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC) is required. This review serves to ensure a fair and thorough assessment of the faculty member’s performance by their peers.
Each year, all full-time faculty members will be evaluated on teaching excellence, their Professional Pathway, and their contractual and professionalism expectations. The annual faculty evaluation process will provide substantive, formative feedback for all faculty members as part of the continual improvement process.
In the annual faculty evaluation process, part-time faculty members will be evaluated on teaching excellence and engagement with professional development in the annual faculty evaluation process.
4.3.B.1 Requirements and Evidence: Teaching Excellence and the Professional Pathway
The following represents the minimum expectations for all full-time teaching faculty.
Category 1: Teaching Excellence 80% of workload for typical faculty member
Teaching Excellence: The definition and key elements of teaching excellence can be found in 4.1.A Teacher-Scholar Teaching Excellence.
Category 2: The Professional Pathway 20% of workload for typical faculty member
The Teacher-Scholar Model allows flexibility and some individual differentiation in aligning faculty members’ talents and interests with the University’s needs and priorities. This is accomplished through the Professional Pathway. The Professional Pathway includes expectations for:
- Professional development,
- Service to the University, and
- Additional activities of choice
This pathway may evolve from year to year, adapting to the changing needs and interests of both faculty and the University.
Components of the Professional Pathway
- Professional Development: The definition and key elements of professional development can be found in 4.1.B Teacher-Scholar Professional Development.
- Service to the University: The definition and key elements of service can be found in 4.1.C Teacher-Scholar Service.
- Additional Activities of Choice: In addition to the expected professional development and service to the University, faculty members can choose activities that align with their strengths and interests. These include the following categories:
- Research and Scholarship Pathway:
- Publications (books, articles, conference papers)
- Ongoing research/creative projects
- Grants and funding acquired
- Presentations at professional conferences
- Collaborations and interdisciplinary work
- Professional/Community Service Pathway:
- Holding leadership positions in professional organizations
- Organizing conferences, workshops, and seminars
- Consulting
- Conducting workshops or training sessions
- Serving on advisory boards/councils
- Expanded/Amplified Professional Development Pathway
- Evidenced by participation in professional development in addition to the expectations in Professional Development section above.
- Evidenced by participation in approved professional practice that relates to the Teacher-Scholar Model such as clinical practice, organizing or directing performances or productions, facilitating industry connections and internships/co-ops, business consulting, professional development workshops for in-service teachers, community engagement, etc.
- Expanded/Amplified Service to the University Pathway:
- Evidenced by participation in University service in addition to the expectations in Service to the University section above.
Category 3: Contractual and Professionalism Expectations
All faculty members are expected to meet certain expectations that relate to their contractual expectations in addition to basic professionalism as noted in Section 2: Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of Lenoir-Rhyne University Faculty Members.
In general, part-time faculty members teach, hold student drop-in hours, engage in some professional development, and might choose to attend faculty meetings. Due to these specific duties, the following represents the minimum expectations for all part-time faculty members:
Category 1: Teaching Excellence
Teaching Excellence: The definition and key elements of teaching excellence can be found in 4.1.A Teacher-Scholar Teaching Excellence.
Category 2: The Professional Pathway
The typical part-time faculty member is expected to engage in professional development consistent with the part-time faculty policy, 3.3.B.2 Part-time Faculty Ranks, Workload, and Minimum Qualifications.
Category 3: Contractual and Professionalism Expectations
All faculty members are expected to meet certain expectations that relate to their contractual expectations in addition to basic professionalism as noted in Section 2: Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of Lenoir-Rhyne University Faculty Members.
Faculty preparation: Faculty members will complete the faculty section of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form, which will includes a comprehensive self-assessment reflecting on accomplishments, challenges, and goals in the areas of:
- Teaching excellence, including:
- Reflections on the peer/dean-review of teaching, if required (see schedule below)
- Reflections on student ratings of instruction (SRIs) and ways in which student feedback has informed their teaching. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to encourage students to fill out SRIs and to provide time for students to do so.
- The Professional Pathway (optional for part-time faculty members)
- Accomplishments, challenges, and goals in any other relevant areas based on workload responsibilities, such as administrative reassign time or teacher-scholar reassign time, if applicable.
All faculty members will submit the following to the dean by the last Monday in May of each academic year:
- The faculty section of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form
- Updated CV
- Peer-review if required (see schedule below)
- Supporting documentation (if desired)
Dean/supervisor preparation: Deans/supervisors will complete the dean section of the faculty annual evaluation form, which will include:
- A thorough review and summary of the faculty member’s self-assessment and supporting documentation. As part of that review, the dean will affirm exemplary work that earns ratings of “accomplished” or “distinguished”, affirm quality work that earns a rating of “proficient”, or indicate work that does not meet expectations, earning ratings of “developing” or “fails to meet expectations”
- Scheduling an annual evaluation meeting with the faculty member and preparing a meeting agenda that includes a celebration of accomplishments, discussion of challenges and goals, and identification of resources and support for future development
This process will be completed by the second Monday of August.
Annual Evaluation Meeting:
- The meeting is scheduled at least two weeks in advance to allow both the faculty member and the dean adequate preparation time.
- The meeting focuses on a constructive and collaborative dialogue, highlighting achievements, addressing areas for growth, and establishing goals for the upcoming year
- The dean provides specific and actionable feedback, focusing on both strengths and areas for development, and offers resources and guidance to support the faculty member’s growth
- The meeting occurs by the third Friday in September.
- Any corrections to the faculty annual evaluation form are made in agreement between the faculty member and the dean and must be submitted to the other party within a week of the annual evaluation meeting.
Documentation:
- Both the faculty member and dean sign the form, acknowledging that the review took place, and the content was discussed.
- The faculty member may attach comments in response to the review and summary of the dean.
- The signed form, peer-review, and CV is sent by the dean to The Office of Academic Affairs for review and placement into the faculty member’s personnel file, and a copy of the signed form is provided by the dean to the faculty member.
Follow-up and Support:
- Deans/supervisors and faculty members will maintain open communication throughout the year to monitor progress, provide support, and adjust goals as needed.
- If necessary, the dean will work with the provost to develop specific action plans to address areas needing improvement by the faculty member, with clear timelines and expectations.
Confidentiality: All information related to the review process will be kept confidential, respecting the privacy of all parties involved.
Schedule for Peer/Dean Review of Teaching:
The dean and faculty peers will complete reviews of teaching regularly to help faculty colleagues assess and continually improve their teaching. This is required for all full-time faculty members and optional for part-time faculty members, unless requested by a dean.
Submitted by faculty members as part of their faculty annual evaluation form.
- Year 1 = Peer and dean review are both required and can occur at any time during the year
- Year 2 = Dean /supervisor review is required and can occur at any time in the fall
- Year 3 = Peer review is required and can occur at any time during the year
- Year 4 = Dean /supervisor review is required and can occur at any time during the year
- Year 5 = Peer review is required and can occur at any time during the year
- Year 6 = Dean /supervisor review is required and can occur at any time during the year
A copy of each review will be submitted by the faculty member as part of their faculty annual evaluation.
For non-tenure track faculty members, the review will continue with peer evaluation on odd years and dean evaluations on even years. If requested by a dean, part-time faculty peer review will continue on a schedule determined by the dean.
For tenure-track faculty members, deans/supervisors are scheduled to review in any year that a tenure-track or tenured faculty member is up for a review as part of the promotion and tenure process. In addition, if required for an off-year formal evaluation by the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the dean will perform a dean evaluation of teaching during that year as well.
For tenured faculty members. Evaluations post-tenure will occur as follows:
- Peer (Year 2 post-tenure)
- Peer (Year 4 post-tenure)
- Dean (Post-tenure review year)
- Review will continue with peer evaluation on even years and dean evaluations in any year that a faculty member is up for post-tenure review or up for promotion.
Deans/supervisors have the purview to complete a teaching evaluation or otherwise review faculty as and when desirable, including at time not on the regular schedule outlined above.
The key stages and processes in a faculty member’s career progression towards tenure and beyond are:
- Continuation of appointment: assessing progress toward tenure
- Determination of tenure: deciding whether to grant tenure
- Promotion: evaluating readiness for advancement to associate professor or professor
- Post-tenure review: review every five years after tenure is achieved
Connection Between Annual Faculty Evaluation and Tenure/Promotion Review: While annual evaluations guide all faculty members towards continual improvement, they also provide a structured framework for tenure-track faculty members to align their activities with promotion and tenure criteria. This ensures clear expectations, timely support, and opportunities for adjustments throughout the promotion and tenure process.
In addition to annual evaluations, full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty members will be evaluated by the Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC) on the following:
- Faculty Contributions:
- Self-Assessment Letter: Submit a comprehensive reflection letter on accomplishments, challenges, and areas of improvement since the last review. This letter should address performance in teaching and progress within the Professional Pathway. Be sure to consider the University’s Teacher-Scholar Model when writing the self-assessment. If applicable, also discuss any achievements or challenges related to workload responsibilities such as administrative or teacher-scholar reassigned time.
- Annual Evaluations: Include all annual evaluations from the review period. This includes annual evaluation forms, peer evaluations, CVs, and any other supporting evidence gathered during those evaluations.
- Supporting Documentation: Submission of any additional evidence that supports a case for continuation, promotion or tenure is optional. This could include publications, grants, presentations, awards, or other relevant materials.
- SRIs and Syllabi: These will be collected separately by the dean each year and do not need to be included in your portfolio unless it highlights specific aspects of teaching.
- Dean, The Office of Academic Affairs, PTC Contributions:
- Dean Assessment Letter: The dean will provide a comprehensive assessment letter similar in scope to the faculty member’s self-assessment letter. The letter should address performance in teaching and progress within the Professional Pathway, considering any relevant workload responsibilities.
- Previous PTC Recommendations: The Office of Academic Affairs will provide to the current PTC all previous Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC) recommendations.
- Additional Information: The PTC may request further information or evidence at their discretion.
Deans/supervisors conduct a review of teaching for tenure-track and tenured faculty members during any year they are undergoing a continuation, promotion, or tenure review as a standard part of the process. Additionally, if the PTC requires a formal evaluation in an off year, the dean will also conduct a teaching evaluation that year, ensuring consistent feedback and support for faculty development.
For tenured faculty members, PTC evaluations follow a regular cycle with peer reviews every other year (e.g., year 2 and year 4 post-tenure). Dean reviews occur in any year a faculty member undergoes a post-tenure review or is being considered for promotion and can be conducted at any point throughout that year. This system provides ongoing feedback and support while allowing for flexibility in scheduling dean evaluations to coincide with key career milestones.
Schedule of PTC Reviews (in addition to annual faculty evaluations)
Continuation of appointment: assessing progress toward tenure
- In the spring semester of the second and fall semester of the fourth year of service, faculty members undergo a continuation review by the dean, PTC, and provost. These reviews offer feedback on progress toward tenure and/or promotion.
- Upon recommendation of the PTC, the provost may require a faculty member to participate in a third or fifth-year review. Such reviews will occur when the PTC identifies areas where significant improvement will be needed for successful tenure and/or promotion.
- In certain circumstances, the dean and provost may require a third or fifth-year review for a faculty member, even without a recommendation from the PTC. This may occur if both the dean and the provost agree it is necessary based on confidential personnel information that the PTC might not have access to.
- In exceptionally rare instances a non-renewal of the probationary term contract will occur for faculty members whose performance is significantly deficient and shows no prospect of improvement.
- Third-year Review
- During the third-year PTC review, the faculty member must submit a “Plan for Success” to the PTC. This plan should outline how the faculty member intends to address any concerns or recommendations raised in the second-year PTC review and demonstrate a trajectory towards achieving the expectations for the fourth-year PTC review and ultimately, tenure.
- The PTC will review the “Plan for Success” as part of the third-year PTC review process. Failure to submit a satisfactory plan may result in non-renewal of the faculty member’s contract.
- Fifth-year Review
- The fifth-year PTC review mirrors the second-year and fourth-year PTC reviews
Determination of tenure: deciding whether to grant tenure
- In the fall semester of the sixth year of service, PTC tenure review occurs in conjunction with review of promotion to associate professor,
- Faculty members whose performance is deficient may be denied tenure and be given a terminal contract.
- In exceptional cases like extended medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), faculty members may request to the provost for an additional year for tenure consideration. This request must be made no later than the fall semester of the fifth year of service.
- Outstanding performance may warrant an early tenure review. However, faculty members should consult with their dean and the provost before pursuing early tenure, as expectations will be higher, and consistent with all tenure reviews if denied tenure, the faculty member will be given a terminal contract. This request should be made no sooner than the spring semester of the fourth year of service.
- Note that upon entry to the University, a faculty member may be given credit towards tenure due to prior experience, and if so, their specific timeline will be outlined in their offer letter.
Promotion: evaluating readiness for advancement to associate professor or professor
- Promotion to associate professor occurs in the sixth year of service with the PTC tenure review.
- Promotion to professor can occur no earlier than the sixth year following the conferral of tenure.
- All faculty members who apply for promotion undergo a promotion review by the dean, PTC, and provost.
- Note that upon entry to the University, a faculty member may be given credit towards rank due to prior experience, and if so, their specific timeline will be outlined in their offer letter.
Post-tenure review: review once tenure is achieved
- In the fifth year following conferral of tenure, and every fifth year thereafter, faculty members undergo a post-tenure review by the dean, PTC, and provost. These reviews provide valuable feedback and ensure continued adherence to the high-performance standards expected of tenured faculty. For associate professors, the post-tenure review also includes an assessment of their readiness for promotion to full professor.
Formal Evaluation Schedule
- Fall Evaluation Schedule (applicable to fourth-year review, promotion review, and tenure review)
- Second Monday of September: Faculty member submits review materials to the dean/supervisor (if applicable).
- First Monday of October: Dean submits review materials to The Office of Academic Affairs.
- Second Monday of October: The Office of Academic Affairs submits review materials to the PTC.
- Third Monday in November: PTC submits recommendation to The Office of Academic Affairs for provost and president review.
- First Friday in December: President submits recommendations to the Board of Trustees for review.
- December 31: Notification of result provided to faculty member and respective dean.
- Spring Evaluation Schedule (second-year review, post-tenure review)
- Second Monday of January: Faculty member submits review materials to the dean/supervisor (if applicable).
- First Monday of February: Dean submits review materials to The Office of Academic Affairs.
- Second Monday of February: (OAA) submits review materials to the PTC.
- Fourth Monday in March: PTC submits recommendation to (OAA) for provost and president review.
- March 31: Notification of result provided to faculty member and respective dean.
Notification and Deadlines for Review
In the spring semester, The Office of Academic Affairs will inform all faculty members who are scheduled for continuation, tenure, or post-tenure reviews in the upcoming academic year. The notification will detail the evaluation and a timeline, including final submission dates. The Office of Academic Affairs will distribute evaluation materials to relevant parties and provide faculty members with access to electronic tools for compiling their tenure/promotion documentation.
Faculty members who are eligible and wish to apply for promotion are responsible for meeting all deadlines, even without direct notification. Faculty members seeking promotion to full professor must submit an email request to The Office of Academic Affairs by the fourth Friday in April of the year prior to the evaluation year.
The University’s annual evaluation process is designed to encourage the continuing innovation and improvement of professional librarians. Through the annual evaluation, the University affirms exemplary work that exceeds expectations and quality work that meets expectations, and the University indicates work that does not meet expectations. In all instances the University identifies areas for improvement. This evaluation process is intended to cultivate continuous improvement and to promote and support the development of professional librarians and the University libraries to their full potential. When a professional librarian repeatedly does not meet expectations of performance, this Handbook provides guidance on the correct course of action.
Each year, all full-time professional librarians will be evaluated. The annual evaluation process will provide substantive, formative feedback for all professional librarians as part of the continual improvement process.
Professional librarians are evaluated annually by the Dean of University Libraries. The evaluation procedure follows the University’s Staff Performance Planning and Evaluation (PPEP) Program. The evaluation process also includes the submission of an annual Librarian Activity Report by each librarian. The PPEP form addresses the area of Performance as a Librarian. The Librarian Activity Report addresses the three areas of performance of a librarian, professional development and service. The following criteria form the basis of the evaluation for each criterion:
Full-time Professional Librarians:
Category 1: Performance as a Librarian.
In their major responsibilities and other duties as assigned, the librarian demonstrates:
- contributions to the work of the library
- knowledge of field
- initiative, accuracy, thoroughness, and organization in performance of responsibilities
- ability to follow policies and procedures and discerning judgment in application of policies and procedures
- cooperative and collegial relationships with University community members
- demonstrated ability for working with students, faculty, and library patrons
- adaptability and flexibility with changes in policies, procedures, technology, schedules, and the like
- professional response to criticism
- administrative ability
Category 2: Professional Development:
- annually develops and accomplishes professional development goals
- keeps current in their field through study, reading, etc.
- writes and publishes (or presents) articles, papers, manuals, books, etc.
- attends professional meetings, workshops, seminars on a regular basis
- completes graduate courses, if appropriate, even though not a part of a structured degree program
- demonstrates openness to new ideas and controversial matters
- participates actively in professional organizations: holds office, serves on committees, etc.
- engages in travel/study related to professional development in the field
- engages in an active reading program (that goes beyond reading or rereading texts for classes)
- contributes to campus faculty improvement groups and/or other, more informal collaborative scholarly activities with colleagues
Category 3: Service to the University and Community:
- regularly attends and participates in Faculty Assembly meetings
- participates effectively in special program planning, development, assessment, and/or school/program/institutional self-study activities
- participates effectively in school or program activities
- assumes responsibilities in school or program (committees, recorder, etc.)
- completes administrative assignments thoroughly and on time
- serves effectively and actively on one or more standing or specially appointed University committees (attends meetings, assumes share of committee assignments, contributes to deliberations, etc.)
- participates in University activities which assist in recruiting students (Open Houses or other admissions activities) or in orienting and/or registering students already accepted (Jumpstart, etc.); in placing graduates; or in providing other supportive service to the University
- is an active member of / a teacher or officer or committee member in / a speaker or presenter for a church
- is an active member of / an office or committee member in / a speaker or presenter for a civic organization
- is an active member of or participant in / a speaker or presenter for a community service organization
Definition of ratings for Performance Evaluation:
Exceeds Expectations: An Exceeds Expectations distinction is reserved for a very limited number of persons whose performance (in a specific category or generally) is truly outstanding relative to their Lenoir-Rhyne University professional librarian colleagues. While the actual number of persons who achieve this level of distinction will be in part determined by actual performance, it would be unusual for an individual to achieve this rating in all categories or generally in a formal evaluation.
Meets Expectations: The Meets Expectations distinction is for performance (in a specific category or generally) that meets or exceeds the normal expectations and quality of performance among Lenoir-Rhyne University professional librarians.
Learning Curve: The Learning Curve distinction indicates that the individual’s performance meets the basic expectations of a Lenoir-Rhyne University professional librarian (in a specific category or generally).
Needs Improvement: A Needs Improvement rating indicates that the professional librarian (in a specific category or generally) performs the most basic contractual expectations of their position at a level that is not indicative of normal Lenoir-Rhyne University professional librarian performance. The implication of this rating is that the individual needs to improve their performance (in the specific category or generally). A rating of Needs Improvements indicates for candidates seeking continuation either the need for intervention with a specific plan-of-improvement or a record of performance that does not meet levels necessary for continued appointment.
Unsatisfactory: An Unsatisfactory rating indicates that the individual’s performance does not meet the usual contractual expectations of a Lenoir-Rhyne University professional librarian and does not achieve a record of performance necessary for continuation or promotion.
The University is committed to supporting faculty members in achieving their full professional potential. When concerns arise about a faculty member’s performance, the University will strive to provide guidance and resources to facilitate improvement. In certain cases, typically where informal feedback and support are insufficient, a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) may be implemented for faculty members on continuous, probationary, or renewable-term contracts.
Purpose of the PIP
The PIP is a formal document outlining a structured process for addressing performance deficiencies and supporting faculty members in meeting their position expectations. The PIP’s goal is to foster improvement and ensure that faculty members understand the areas needing attention, the specific expectations for improvement, and the resources available to support their development.
Initiating the PIP
A PIP may be initiated under the following circumstances:
- Recommendation by Promotion and Tenure Committee (PTC): During a PTC review of any faculty member (including tenured faculty members), if the committee concludes that a faculty member’s performance requires further attention, it may recommend a PIP to address areas of concern. The provost and dean will then determine whether to implement a PIP.
- Dean and Provost Initiative: Outside of a PTC recommendation, the dean and provost have the authority to collaboratively initiate a PIP for any faculty member.
- Serious Concerns: PIPs may be initiated in response to serious concerns that require immediate attention and support for significant and persistent unacceptable conduct as described in Section 2: Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of Lenoir-Rhyne University Faculty Members.
Developing the PIP
The dean, in collaboration with the provost and faculty member, will develop a written PIP that includes the following elements:
- Identified Performance Deficiencies: Identifies the areas where the faculty member’s performance is not meeting expectations, providing examples and evidence.
- Expected Improvements: Defines the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound goals and objectives for improvement.
- Support and Resources: Outlines the support and resources the University will provide to help the faculty member achieve the goals (e.g., mentoring, professional development, training, peer observation). Additional personnel may be engaged as part of these resources.
- Timeline: Sets a reasonable timeframe for achieving the goals and objectives, with specific milestones and deadlines.
- Evaluation: Describes the process for evaluating the faculty member’s progress, including the frequency of check-in meetings, the criteria for assessing improvement, and the potential consequences of not meeting the goals.
Implementing and Monitoring the PIP
- Agreement: The faculty member and the dean will sign the PIP to acknowledge their understanding and commitment to the process.
- Regular Check-ins: The dean will meet regularly with the faculty member to monitor progress and provide feedback.
- Documentation: The PIP, along with all communication, feedback, and evaluation related to the PIP, will be documented in writing and placed in the faculty member’s personnel file.
Outcomes of the PIP
- Successful Completion: If the faculty member successfully meets the goals and objectives outlined in the PIP within the designated timeframe, the PIP will be concluded, and the faculty member will continue in their position.
- Unsuccessful Completion: If the faculty member does not demonstrate sufficient improvement or fails to meet the goals of the PIP, further action may be taken, up to and including dismissal for cause. The specific procedures for dismissal are outlined in 4.4.D Action for Cause.
The PIP is designed to be a supportive and developmental process aimed at helping faculty members succeed. The University is committed to providing the necessary resources and guidance throughout this process. Faculty members are encouraged to openly communicate with their dean and the provost, raising any concerns or seeking clarification about the PIP at any time.
This section outlines the procedures for ending the employment relationship between faculty members and the University.
Faculty Initiated Separation:
- Resignation: A faculty member may voluntarily resign from their position.
- Retirement: A faculty member may retire from the University
University Initiated Separation:
- Non-renewal: The University may choose not to renew a faculty member’s probationary-term or renewable-term contracts. Fixed-term contracts have no expectation of renewal.
- Dismissal for Cause: The University may dismiss a faculty member for reasons such as misconduct or performance issues.
- Termination: The University may terminate a faculty member’s employment.
As stated in the University Bylaws, Article XV, section 9, in the case of any University-initiated separation, the faculty member shall be given written notification. Such notice shall set forth the reason or reasons for the separation. All such notices shall inform the recipient of their right to a hearing by a Faculty Hearing Committee.
The procedures outlined in this section aim to ensure that the rights and interests of both faculty members and the University are protected throughout any of these processes.
Resignation is the formal process for voluntarily leaving a faculty position at the University. To resign, a faculty member must submit a written notice to their dean and the provost as early as possible. However, the deadline for submitting a resignation is May 15th, or 30 days after receiving the next year’s employment contract, whichever date comes later. This deadline allows the University adequate time to search for and hire a qualified replacement, ensuring continuity of instruction for students. While a faculty member is generally expected to complete the academic year, they can request to leave earlier due to hardship or a significant professional opportunity. In such cases, the faculty member should contact their dean and the provost to discuss their situation and request a waiver of the notice period.
Retirement is the formal process by which a faculty member voluntarily ends their employment at the University, typically after a long career. To formally initiate retirement, a faculty member must submit a written notice to their dean and the provost as early as possible, and no later than nine months prior to their intended retirement date. This extended notice period allows the University ample time to conduct a thorough search for a qualified replacement, ensuring a smooth transition and minimal disruption to academic programs and student learning. While faculty members are generally expected to complete the academic year in which they submit their retirement notice, earlier departures may be possible in extenuating circumstances. In such cases, the faculty member should contact their dean and the provost to discuss their situation and explore options for an earlier retirement date.
Retiring faculty members who are eligible for professor emeriti status may receive those retirement benefits, recognitions, and privileges as provided in 3.6 Professor Emeritus.
Non-renewal occurs when the University decides not to renew a faculty member’s probationary-term or renewable-term contract. This means the faculty member’s employment concludes at the end of their current contract, and no new contract will be offered. Faculty members with fixed-term contracts are not subject to non-renewal, as these contracts have a defined end date with no expectation of renewal. The University considers various factors when making decisions regarding renewal, including the faculty member’s performance in teaching and the Professional Pathway; their alignment with the University’s needs and resources; and whether their work meets the standards for renewal or tenure as determined through the faculty review process. Additionally, a position may be eliminated as outlined below. Ultimately, the decision not to renew balances the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence and potential with the University’s programmatic and budgetary considerations. 4.5 Appeal and Grievance Procedures outlines the specific procedures and timelines for non-renewal, including notification requirements and any available appeal processes.
This section addresses possible actions taken by the University against a faculty member due to misconduct, performance deficiencies, or failure to comply with University policies.
Any allegations related to violations of the University’s Title IX and Sexual Harassment Policy will be investigated and addressed according to that policy.
Any allegations related to violations of the University’s Non-Discrimination, Harassment, and Anti-Retaliation Policy will be investigated and addressed according to that policy.
- Informal Resolution: When concerns arise regarding a faculty member’s conduct or performance, the dean will consult with the provost and discuss the matter with the faculty member. If possible, a mutually agreeable resolution will be sought including any necessary disciplinary action.
- Performance Improvement Plan (PIP): If informal resolution is unsuccessful, or if the concerns relate to performance deficiencies, the dean, in consultation with the provost, may develop and implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as described in 4.3.E Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). PIPs are a process only afforded to faculty members on continuous, probationary-term, or renewable-term contracts.
- Formal Investigation: If the PIP is not successful, if a faculty member is on a fixed- term contract, or if the concerns relate to serious misconduct that warrants immediate action, a formal investigation may be initiated. This involves:
- Suspension: In some cases, faculty members may face suspension during the investigation process. Suspension is the involuntary temporary and formal removal of a faculty member from their duties and responsibilities, typically with pay, pending an investigation or resolution of a specific matter. This measure is usually taken in response to serious allegations or circumstances that may warrant further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal for adequate cause.
- Appointing an Investigator: An impartial investigator will be appointed, who may be a University employee or an external consultant.
- Gathering Evidence: The investigator will gather relevant evidence, which may include interviews with the faculty member, witnesses, and other involved parties; review of documents and records; and any other necessary inquiries.
- Written Report: The investigator will prepare a written report summarizing the findings of the investigation and providing any recommendations of disciplinary action or formal dismissal.
- Sharing the Report: The report will be shared with the provost, the faculty member, and any other relevant parties.
- Formal Dismissal Process: Dismissal for cause is the severance of employment by which the University ends its professional relationship with a faculty member due to serious misconduct, significant performance deficiencies, or failure to comply with University policies. Dismissal for cause can occur for any full-time or part-time faculty member regardless of contract type, including tenured faculty member on a continuous contract. This action is taken when adequate cause exists, which includes but is not limited to actions of unacceptable conduct as described in Section 2: Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of Lenoir-Rhyne University Faculty Members.
Based on the findings of a formal investigation or the unsuccessful completion of a PIP, the provost, with the concurrence of the president, may initiate dismissal proceedings. The University recognizes the gravity of dismissal proceedings and upholds the presumption of innocence for any faculty member facing such action. The University bears the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence adequate cause for dismissal through a fair and transparent process.
This process involves:
- Written Notification: Within 14 calendar days of the decision to pursue dismissal, the provost will provide the faculty member with a written statement of charges, via email addressed to the faculty member’s University email address, clearly outlining the alleged misconduct or deficiencies.
- Suspension: In some cases, faculty members may face suspension during the process. Suspension is the involuntary temporary and formal removal of a faculty member from their duties and responsibilities, typically with pay, pending an investigation or resolution of a specific matter. This measure is usually taken in response to serious allegations or circumstances that may warrant further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal for adequate cause.
- Opportunity to Respond: The faculty member will have 14 calendar days to respond to the charges in writing, via email, to the provost.
- Further Investigation: If necessary, the provost may conduct further investigation to gather additional information or evidence. This investigation should be completed within 30 calendar days.
Rights and Protections:
- Legal Representation: Both the faculty member and the University have the right to legal representation at their own expense.
- Due Process: Faculty members have rights in all cases of dismissal for adequate cause through the grievance procedures outlined in 4.5 Appeal and Grievance Procedures.
- Retaliation: The University prohibits any form of retaliation against a member of the University community for raising concerns about misconduct, inadequate performance or for participating in the dismissal process. Retaliation by a faculty member may itself be deemed adequate cause for action under this Section 4.4.D.
Termination of a faculty appointment occurs when the University ends the employment relationship before the natural end of a contract for reasons other than those addressed in Section 4.4.D Action for Cause. Termination may apply to tenured, probationary-term, renewable-term, and fixed-term faculty members. Termination can occur due to 1) the inability of a faculty member to perform the essential functions of their faculty position due to a disability, in accordance with applicable laws, rule and regulations, or 2) the elimination of faculty positions.
The University is committed to providing equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities and will make reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, termination may occur if a faculty member is unable to perform one or more of the essential functions of their position, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Process:
- Interactive Process: After the ADA interactive process has concluded and the University has determined that no reasonable accommodation(s) will effectively enable the faculty member to perform one or more of the essential functions of their position, the provost will initiate a Meeting and Consultation with the faculty member.
- Meeting and Consultation: The provost will meet with the faculty member to discuss the situation and explore possible resolutions, taking into consideration the faculty member’s perspectives and any clear evidence, such as documented performance deficits.
- Resolution Efforts: The provost will attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution with the faculty member.
- Presidential Review: If a resolution cannot be reached, the provost will present the case to the president for review.
- President’s Decision: The president will make the final decision regarding termination, considering the provost’s recommendation.
- Severance: If termination occurs, the faculty member may be eligible for severance pay based on their length of service.
Termination may occur due to (1) program elimination or reduction, or (2) financial exigency:
Elimination or significant reduction of an academic program or programs due to low or reduced enrollment, low or reduced revenue generation, or low or reduced demand. Determinations regarding these matters will be made pursuant to the Comprehensive Program Review Process, outlined below.
Comprehensive Program Review Process.
The University is committed to the ongoing assessment and enhancement of its academic programs through a continuous institutional effectiveness cycle. This cycle includes annual and periodic programmatic assessments with regular review of program data, such as enrollment trends, retention rates, graduation rates, and student success outcomes. This ongoing assessment informs decisions regarding faculty positions, resource allocation, and recruitment and retention strategies. While program review is a continuous process, comprehensive program reviews leading to significant changes, like eliminating positions, are typically conducted in response to or in anticipation of significant enrollment fluctuations, substantial changes in program demand, new academic priorities, or other circumstances. The University strives to maintain a stable and supportive environment for its academic programs, recognizing their vital role in fulfilling the University’s mission and serving students.
In the circumstance of a comprehensive program review, the University is committed to a process that fosters collaboration and meaningful input from faculty. This ensures that academic programs are evaluated for quality, relevance, and alignment with the University’s mission and strategic goals.
- Data Sharing and Validation: To ensure transparency and accuracy in the comprehensive program review process, all data used for the review will be shared with the faculty in advance. Faculty members are encouraged to carefully examine this data and provide feedback on any concerns regarding its validity or accuracy through a designated channel, such as a dedicated email address, an online form, or a dedicated meeting.
- Provost Meetings with Affected Programs/Colleges: The provost will meet individually with each affected program or college to discuss the comprehensive program review process. These meetings will provide opportunities for faculty members to ask questions about the process and criteria, share their perspectives on program strengths and challenges, and offer suggestions for program improvement.
- Comprehensive Program Review Advisory Committee: To ensure a comprehensive and well-informed process, the provost will consult with a Program Review Advisory Committee at least twice, at the beginning of the process and before final decisions are made. This committee will be composed of the assistant provosts, deans, and the chair of the Faculty Senate. This group will provide diverse perspectives, including faculty representation, administrative oversight, and a broad understanding of University priorities. The committee will advise the provost on, at minimum:
- The fairness and consistency of the review process.
- The impact of potential program changes on the faculty, including considerations of shared governance, workload, and faculty lines.
- Process considerations related to program discontinuation or reduction.
- Program alignment with the University’s mission and strategic plan.
- Resource allocation and budget implications of program changes.
- Potential for interdisciplinary connections and collaborations.
- Faculty Committees: Two separate faculty committees will play a vital role in the comprehensive program review process, providing valuable insights and recommendations to the provost. Both committees will follow the same process of carefully analyzing program data, including number of majors, number of graduates, student credit hour production, faculty FTEs, and other relevant data.
The first committee will be the Faculty Status Committee. The second committee will be formed to provide program-specific expertise and perspectives. This committee will include representatives elected from the program or college under review, as well as peers elected from similar programs or colleges, offering a balanced perspective. In the case of a University-wide comprehensive program review, this committee will ensure equal representation from all colleges to provide a comprehensive view of the University’s academic offerings.
Both committees will independently analyze the data and formulate recommendations for program improvement, restructuring, or discontinuation, which may or may not include recommendations for elimination of faculty positions. These recommendations will be presented to the provost, who will consider the perspectives of both committees as part of the decision-making process. This dual committee structure ensures a thorough and balanced comprehensive program review process that incorporates both faculty expertise and a commitment to procedural fairness.
- Provost Meetings with Deans: The provost will meet individually with the deans of affected programs or colleges to discuss the dean’s assessment of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, the feedback provided by the faculty committees, the dean’s recommendations for program improvement or potential action, and any concerns or challenges specific to the program or college.
- Provost Recommendations and President’s Decision: Considering the feedback from all participating groups, the provost will formulate recommendations regarding each program under review. These recommendations may include continued support and enhancement of strong programs, targeted improvements for programs needing adjustments, restructuring or consolidation of programs, or discontinuation of programs that are no longer viable or aligned with University priorities. These recommendations might also include recommendations for elimination of faculty positions. The provost will submit these recommendations to the president, who will make the final decisions on elimination of positions and termination of faculty.
- Determination of Termination: When determining which faculty members will be terminated, several factors are considered. While tenure status, years of service, and other relevant factors, such as information included in personnel records, are considered, the most important consideration is maintaining a strong and balanced educational program that aligns with the University’s mission and goals. To ensure this primary goal is met, the provost will consult with the relevant deans before having discussions about termination with the president. The University will make reasonable efforts to provide notice of termination of at least twelve (12) months’ to tenured faculty members and six (6) months’ to probationary-term and renewable-term faculty members. However, shorter notice may be necessary, depending on the circumstances.
- Faculty members have appropriate rights in all termination cases through the grievance procedures outlined in 4.5 Appeal and Grievance Procedures.
- To assist faculty members facing termination, the University will provide reasonable assistance in finding other employment, where applicable. Faculty members seeking such assistance should submit a request to the provost via email.
Financial exigency is a state of dire financial concern that poses an imminent threat to the University’s ability to operate and fulfill its core educational mission. This condition arises when existing financial resources are insufficient to sustain essential functions and cannot be resolved through ordinary budget cuts or reasonable alternative measures. The authority to declare financial exigency rests with the Board of Trustees in its sole and absolute discretion.
When a faculty member’s employment at the University concludes the following procedures must be followed:
Exit Interview
- In an ordinary case, the college dean and/or an administrator from The Office of Academic Affairs will conduct an exit interview with the departing faculty member.
- During this interview, the faculty member will return all University property, including keys and any assigned equipment including computers
Vacating University Premises
- Faculty members are expected to vacate their assigned offices and rooms upon the conclusion of their appointment. When vacating the office, the faculty member is expected to remove all personal belongings and leave only University-furnished furniture. University-owned items must be returned during the exit interview. This helps to prepare the office for the next occupant and minimizes any additional work for college staff members.
- If the faculty member is employed for summer school teaching, they might be allowed to retain their office until the end of their summer school appointment with permission from their dean and The Office of Academic Affairs.
For the avoidance of doubt, the procedures set forth herein do not apply to (i) allegations related to violations of the University’s Title IX and Sexual Harassment Policy, or (ii) allegations related to violations of the University’s Non-Discrimination, Harassment, and Anti-Retaliation Policy, all of which will be addressed according to those particular policies.
A faculty member may initiate an appeal process if their non-renewal, dismissal for cause, or termination was based on arbitrary or capricious grounds. To appeal, the faculty member must submit a written request to the provost via email within 14 calendar days of receiving official notice of separation. Failure to request an appeal within this timeframe waives all hearing and appeal rights.
Faculty Hearing Committee
As stated in the University Bylaws, Article XV, section 9, faculty have the right to a hearing. Upon receiving an appeal request, the provost will refer the case to a Faculty Hearing Committee. The Faculty Hearing Committee comprises five members selected as follows:
- Four members are chosen by the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee from among the elected members of the Standing Faculty Committees, giving those faculty members the option to serve on the Faculty Hearing Committee for this specific case.
- The fifth member, who will serve as the committee chair, is selected by the Faculty Hearing Committee itself from the elected members of the Standing Faculty Committees, again providing the faculty member with the option to serve in this role.
Hearing Procedures
- Right to Obtain an Advocate: Both parties may choose to be accompanied and advised by an advocate of their choice, who may or may not be legal counsel, throughout the process.
- Legal Counsel: If either party wishes to be accompanied by legal counsel as their advocate, they must notify the committee chair at least 14 calendar days before the hearing. This allows the other party sufficient time to secure legal counsel as well if they choose to do so. For the avoidance of doubt, the University is not required to bear the cost of counsel to serve as any party’s advocate, and anyone who wishes to engage counsel must do so at their own cost and expense.
- Role of Advisors/Counsel: While an advocate may attend the hearing, their role is limited to providing advice and support to their respective parties without addressing the Faculty Hearing Committee. Advocates are not permitted on behalf of a party to present information, submit evidence, or directly question others at the hearing.
- Presentation of Documentation and Testimony: Parties have the right to present evidence relevant to their case, including witness testimony and documentation.
- Asking Questions: To ensure a thorough understanding of the issues, parties may ask questions of each other and of witnesses called by any other party.
- Access to Documentation: Parties have the right to examine all relevant documents and evidence presented at the hearing by others. Upon request, both the faculty member and the Faculty Hearing Committee will be given access to documents relied upon by the person making the original separation decision.
The Faculty Hearing Committee has full control over the hearing process. It will only consider evidence presented during the hearing that it deems fair and reliable and may question any witnesses. An audio recording of the hearing will be provided to the faculty member at the institution’s expense upon request.
Responsibilities of the Faculty Hearing Committee
It is the duty of the Faculty Hearing Committee to:
- Hear the reasons for non-renewal, dismissal for cause, or termination of the faculty member.
- Ascertain as nearly as possible all the relevant facts.
- Deliberate upon the matters before it.
- Recommend to the provost a course of action consistent with the highest academic, ethical, and moral ends of the University
Challenging Committee Members
To ensure impartiality in the appeal process, all parties have the right to raise concerns about any potential conflict of interest a committee member may have. These concerns must be submitted in writing to the chair of the Faculty Hearing Committee within two business days of receiving notification of the committee’s composition.
The chair of the Faculty Hearing Committee will make the final decision on any challenge. However, if the challenge involves the chair themself, the chair of the Faculty Senate will decide. If a committee member is disqualified, the chair of the Faculty Senate will appoint a replacement before the hearing.
Committee Decision and Provost’s Response
The Faculty Hearing Committee will issue a written decision to the parties.
- If the committee rules against the faculty member: The decision will be a simple statement, with no detailed explanation. The faculty member may then appeal the separation decision to the Board of Trustees.
- If the committee rules in favor of the faculty member: The decision will include a recommendation for corrective action to be taken by the provost. The provost has ten days to respond to the committee’s recommendation, informing the faculty member and the committee chair in writing of any changes to the original separation decision. If the provost does not reverse the separation, the faculty member may then appeal to the Board of Trustees.
Appeal to the Board of Trustees
Following the Faculty Hearing Committee process set forth above, a faculty member may appeal to the Board of Trustees, which shall refer the matter to its Executive Committee for final disposition. To do so, the faculty member must file a written appeal to the chair of the Board within thirty (30) days of notification of the Faculty Hearing Committee’s decision. Decisions by the Executive Committee of the Board are final.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is paramount throughout the faculty hearing process. All documents related to the Faculty Hearing Committee, including the initial appeal request, witness statements, evidence presented, minutes or a hearing transcript, the Faculty Hearing Committee’s decision, and the provost’s response, must be retained in the faculty member’s personnel file. If the faculty member appeals the case to the Board of Trustees, the complete set of hearing documents will be provided to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees for their review and consideration. Everyone involved in the hearing process is obligated to maintain confidentiality and refrain from discussing the case or sharing information with unauthorized individuals. This obligation extends beyond the conclusion of the hearing. The University is dedicated to protecting the privacy of all parties and upholding the integrity of the process. Any breach of confidentiality may result in disciplinary action.
Specifically, this means that:
- Committee members must not discuss the case or any details of the hearing with anyone outside of the committee, except when required for official purposes (e.g., communicating the decision to the provost or discussing the hearing with the Board of Trustees).
- Witnesses must keep any information they learn during the hearing confidential.
- For the avoidance of doubt, nothing set forth above requires the faculty member who initiates the appeal nor the provost to maintain confidentiality with regard to matters presented to the Faculty Hearing Committee or the Board of Trustees.
This grievance procedure is designed to provide individual faculty members with a fair and impartial process for resolving concerns they personally experience regarding the interpretation, application, or violation of University policies, procedures, or practices. This process should be used when other established procedures, such as those for appeals to the Faculty Hearing Committee, do not address the specific issue. Faculty members may not file grievances on behalf of other individuals or groups.
Examples of Grievance Issues a Faculty Member May File:
- Policy Application: Concerns about how a specific policy has been applied to them in a particular situation.
- Workload: Issues related to their own teaching load, service obligations, or other workload assignments that deviate from established norms or agreements.
- Reprisal: Allegations of retaliation or negative consequences they experienced because of exercising their rights or raising legitimate concerns.
- Academic Freedom: Infringement on their own academic freedom rights, including teaching, expression, and scholarship.
- Workplace Environment: Concerns about inadequate or unsafe facilities that directly affect them, or unfair allocation of resources impacting their work.
- Disciplinary Actions: Grievances related to disciplinary actions taken against them that are not subject to review by the Faculty Hearing Committee. This may include less formal disciplinary measures or those falling outside the scope of the Faculty Hearing Committee’s purview.
- Policy Violations: Alleged violations of University policies that directly affect them, including those related to professional conduct and conflicts of interest.
- Other Serious Concerns: Other significant issues that affect their own rights, working conditions, or professional standing, and which are not excluded by this procedure or addressed by other University processes.
This grievance procedure is intended to be a constructive process for resolving issues. Faculty members are encouraged to first attempt informal resolution whenever possible before initiating a formal grievance. It is important to remember that this procedure does not replace or supersede other existing University policies or procedures, such as those related to appeals, discrimination complaints, or faculty discipline. This process is specifically designed to address concerns not covered by those other procedures.
Issues Excluded from this Process:
This grievance procedure is intended to provide a channel for resolving specific types of concerns. To ensure clarity and efficient use of this process, the following matters are excluded from its scope:
- Policy Determination: This grievance procedure is not designed to challenge the content or validity of established University policies and procedures.
- Discrimination and Harassment: Any allegations related to violations of the University’s Title IX and Sexual Harassment Policy, or the University’s Non-Discrimination, Harassment, and Anti-Retaliation Policy should be reported under those policies.
- Employment Decisions: Matters that fall under the appeal process in 4.5.A Faculty Appeal Process.
Faculty Grievance Procedure
- Informal Resolution
- Initiation: A faculty member with a concern should first attempt to resolve it informally by discussing it with their dean.
- Alternative Resolution: If the dean is involved in the matter or has a conflict of interest, the provost will designate another individual to assist in informal resolution.
- Timeliness: Reasonable efforts will be made to address and resolve the matter promptly at this stage.
2. Formal Resolution
- Written Submission: If informal resolution is unsuccessful, the faculty member must submit a formal written grievance to their dean within 30 calendar days of the event giving rise to the grievance.
- The statement should clearly describe the grievance, including relevant dates, individuals involved, and the specific policy or practice of concern.
- Notification: Upon receiving the written grievance, the dean will notify the provost.
- Investigation:
- The dean (or an individual designated by the provost if the dean is involved) will conduct a prompt and impartial investigation, which may include interviews with relevant parties and consultation with appropriate University administrators.
- If the provost is involved in the grievance, the president will designate an appropriate individual to conduct the investigation.
- Written Response: The person investigating the matter will provide a written response to the faculty member and other involved parties within 14 calendar days of commencement of the investigation.
3. Administrative Review
- Request for Review: If the faculty member is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation or if no response is received within 14 calendar days, they may request a review by the provost.
- Provost’s Review: The provost, with support from the director of Human Resources, will review the grievance and all relevant documentation. This review should normally be completed within 30 calendar days. The provost can conduct a further investigation, which may include interviews with relevant parties and consultation with appropriate University administrators.
- Decision and Communication: The provost will provide a written response and resolution to the faculty member. The provost’s decision is final.
|
