PROPOSED POLICY ON CHRONIC LOW PERFORMANCE

Each University department/unit shall develop, with input from its faculty, a set of guidelines approved by the Dean, describing the minimum acceptable level of performance for all applicable areas of responsibility for its faculty, as well as procedures to handle alleged cases of chronic low performance.  Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to meet the minimum acceptable level of performance as defined by the department/unit guidelines shall constitute evidence of “chronic low performance” and may warrant consideration for “dismissal for cause” under existing university policies.  This statement is intended to establish a specific and clear procedure for identifying and addressing instances of a faculty member failing to meet the minimum level of performance, and to provide a remediation program where appropriate, as further described below.

If the Chair and/or the FAR Review Committee determines that the overall performance of a faculty member in their department falls below the minimum level of performance, this finding shall be indicated in the annual evaluation form.  The Chair shall discuss with the faculty member a suggested course of action to improve performance and document that discussion.

If during any four-year period a faculty member receives a second annual evaluation which reflects a finding in that department/unit that he or she has failed to meet the minimum level of performance, the Chair shall meet with the faculty member and discuss his or her performance and types of remediation that are available and appropriate.  If the faculty member requests a review of that determination, three tenured faculty members from outside that department/unit but within the same college shall review the faculty member’s annual evaluations and other relevant documents.  The faculty member and the Chair shall each select one reviewer, and they shall jointly select the third person.  The reviewers shall submit a written report to the faculty member, the Chair, and the Dean stating that by majority vote they have verified that departmental guidelines were followed and concluded either that (a) there is evidence of Chronic Low Performance and that remediation is necessary; or (b) there is not evidence of Chronic Low Performance.  The Dean will then make the final decisions regarding chronic low performance after meeting with the faculty member and the Chair.

If remediation is necessary, the Chair will discuss the faculty member’s performance with the faculty member and suggest types of remediation that are available and appropriate.  The remediation may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as counseling, leave of absence, or a change in teaching assignments.  Other remediation steps may be offered, subject to review by the Faculty Affairs committee of the Faculty Senate and the Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Research.  Remediation should begin as soon as possible and will be funded by the university.  The faculty member’s annual review document for the subsequent year should reflect the method of remediation and document its level of success. 

If within any period of five years from the first evaluation of low performance, a tenured faculty member receives a third annual evaluation which reflects a failure to meet the minimum level of performance, the Chair, in conjunction with the Dean, may recommend to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Research that the dismissal for cause policy under Section 4.23 of the University’s Policies and Procedures be invoked.

Chronic Low Performance – a rationale for the current draft

As part of developing a procedure for annual evaluations of tenured faculty in the early 1990s, the Kansas Board of Regents mandated that each institution within the Regents’ system develop a Chronic Low Performance policy that will provide a definition of CLP and use it as an indicator of incompetence, despite all assistance provided for faculty renewal and development.

The WSU faculty senate worked for over twelve years to write such a policy. One two-page version was passed in the senate in the spring 2006 by a narrow margin, but was not signed by the VPAAR’s office. A new draft was written this year, discussed multiple times in the senate and also at the general faculty meeting in November 2006. Upon suggestion by the faculty senate and at the request of the VPAAR’s office to be consulted on developing policies at the onset, the executive committee was charged with negotiating a version acceptable by the senate and the administration directly with the VPAAR’s office.

The present policy proposal is the result of that negotiation.  The policy is simplified in its intent and clearer in its procedure. It provides a clause for due process and outlines the steps for remediation. It provides a clear time frame as well.  The proposed policy was passed unanimously by the Faculty Senate on April 9, 2007.