Chronic Low Performance    10-23-06
Accepted by the Faculty Senate 10-23-06

Presented to the General Faculty 11-14-06

It may come to pass that a faculty member appears to be failing to meet certain standards of professional academic behavior and that this failure is visible to members of the university community.  In this circumstance, the faculty member may be submitted to the following “Chronic Low Performance Policy”.

If the faculty member’s overall performance, as evaluated by peer faculty and his/her department chair, is judged to be substantially below an acceptable level of the profession for a total of three annual evaluations within a five-year period, the faculty member is subject to the university’s Dismissal for Cause procedures. Criteria for judging faculty performance to be substantially below an acceptable level shall include, but are not limited to, (1) unreported extended absence from the classroom, (2) failure to submit grades for a course, (3) absence of an evaluation or testing process for students of a class, (4) failure to provide assigned advising services, (5) failure to be prepared to present course material, (6) failure to address corrections of identified gross impediments in conveying knowledge, (7) violations of accepted standards of scholarly activity (as discussed in WSU Policies and Procedures 9.13 and section 6.4 of the Handbook for Faculty, “Misconduct in Research”), (8) failure to fulfill the agreed-upon responsibilities associated with university service, and (9) creating a hostile and destructive environment which disrupts the normal educational mission of the University.

The process should begin with a review of the faculty member’s annual performance evaluation documents, which the faculty member reviews and signs, with or without attaching a letter of dissent. If an annual review notes that the faculty member’s performance has been substantially below standard during that academic year, this finding should be noted on the review document sent to the academic Dean. This finding must be attested to by the Chair and by other members of the department/unit, whether a standing committee or an ad hoc committee is created to review the specific case being examined. If the committee agrees that the faculty performance has been substantially lower than required, the notation of “low performance” should be indicated on the annual review document. One occurrence of this notation does not constitute grounds for invoking the chronic low performance policy, but rather departmental remediation. Remediation should be spelled out in writing in regard to content and time lines, should be agreed to by both the department chair and the faculty member, and signed by both. Initial remediation should be paid for jointly by the department, the Dean, and the VPAAR.

If a second annual review document notes a second occurrence of low performance, the faculty member should be informed that the policy will be invoked as a record-keeping device at that time and that the faculty’s performance is under evaluation.  If within any five-year period a third annual review document reflects “low performance,"  the Chronic Low Performance policy will be invoked.  The charge should be levied by the Chair or the Dean who has monitored the situation for the years under review.

Invoking the Chronic Low Performance policy will require the creation of an Informal Review Committee composed of faculty members from outside of the department.  This committee should include five members selected randomly from among the university faculty. Members of the university’s grievance pool serving in their final year who have not served on a grievance committee should be considered first; otherwise, a random selection of faculty members will suffice. The Rules Committee of the Faculty Senate, in consultation with the VPAAR, will nominate the members of this committee.  This selection should take place in the office of the VPAAR with the chair of the Rules Committee.  The faculty member being reviewed may dismiss any committee member for cause until five are accepted. The VPAAR also may review and dismiss nominated committee members for cause.

Once the committee is established, it will be assigned to review the faculty member’s annual performance evaluations for the three years cited in the complaint, any documents pertaining to performance, any student evaluations submitted for those years, and any additional notes stemming from the departmental review committee’s initial investigation into the charges. The committee may request teaching materials,  such as syllabuses and graded papers if the charges dictate as much. The Review Committee will report to the chair and the dean.

It should be understood that, once this policy is invoked, the burden of proof falls on the faculty member under review to make the case for dismissal of the charges. The faculty member under review may request a hearing with this Review Committee and may be accompanied by a faculty colleague who serves as advisor, but who may not address the committee unless asked to do so. At this hearing the Review Committee will solicit information from the faculty member under review and will request any materials that may mitigate or validate the charges if such material was not previously provided. The annual review documents citing three incidences of “low performance” will be discussed and evaluated. If the faculty member has written letters of dissent during those years, they will also be discussed. Statements by the departmental salary or review committee will also be admitted. When discussion is deemed sufficient, the hearing will end and the Review Committee will retire to evaluate the evidence provided. The committee must render its finding within ten working days, reporting to the VPAAR, to the academic Dean, and to the department Chair its findings. The Chair and Dean will then make an appointment with the faculty member to discuss the findings of the review Committee.

At this point, both the Chair and the Dean should discuss the faculty member’s performance with the faculty member and suggest types of remediation that are available. These could include the assignment and use of a mentor; the requirement of attending teaching workshops offered by the university or other academic units; the submission of syllabuses and other course-related material for departmental approval; mandatory review of teaching methods by an external party such as a member of the CTRE or AET; and mandatory use of university teaching evaluation services such as SPTE or IDEA. Depending on the manner of low performance, other remediations may be offered, subject to review by the Faculty Affairs committee of the Faculty Senate and the VPAAR.

Remediation should begin as soon as possible after the finding of chronic low performance has been verified. The departmental budget should be adjusted to pay for as much remediation as is available, after which the Dean’s office should supply funding.

Disciplinary action short of dismissal will be determined by the academic unit in consultation with the VPAAR and may include loss of graduate faculty status, loss of privileges in teaching upper-division courses, denial of any type of extra teaching for increased pay, loss of summer teaching privileges, loss of travel privileges, and denial of pay raises or bonuses.

The faculty member’s annual review document for the subsequent year should reflect the method of remediation and document its level of success. If visible improvement is noted, the faculty member will be deemed to have returned to full standing, which should be noted in the annual review document.

 If the low performance is judged to meet the criteria of dismissal for cause, the Informal Review Committee should report such findings to the VPAAR for a formal investigation. It should be noted that incidences of chronic low performance in and of themselves are not grounds for dismissal for cause,  but may lead to dismissal if not corrected. Should the dismissal for cause policy be invoked, the burden of proof will shift to the administration to make the case for dismissal, according to that separate policy.