Why This Matters

In May 2017, the Faculty Senate approved the Policies and Procedures for Faculty Development, Job Responsibility Distributions and Peer-to-Peer Conversations. Section 5.2 states that “The criteria for what qualifies as performance significantly below expected standards (and hence the criteria for issuing a notice of unsatisfactory job performance) will be determined and approved by the deliberation of the faculty of the academic unit with the approval of the dean and will be made public to all unit faculty members. All faculty members will be given an opportunity to provide input.”

What We Are Asking You to Do

Please send your criteria to Kate by the end of winter quarter and rationale for said criteria

More Information

Some of you may have already done this. If not, here is a support document on how you might structure a process. Faculty Senate President Darrin prepared this document and has offered to consult with you on your process, if that would be helpful.We understand this might create some anxiety. Please keep in mind that this process was created and voted on by the Faculty Senate. We are also doing this in the spirit of transparency and clarity. These conversations will be developmental, and not punitive. This is only for very significant performance concerns. Identifying these criteria should help promote fair and transparent assessment of faculty performance by chairs, improve faculty developmental opportunities in identified areas, engage deans in ongoing conversations regarding faculty performance if a pattern emerges, and in extreme and unusual cases, provide clarity to deans and chairs if a faculty member receives a notice of unsatisfactory job performance of the same kind (i.e., in teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and/or service) for three out of five year

Key Documents

Unsatisfactory Performance Policy Process Suggestion

Policies and Procedures for Faculty Development, Job Responsibility Distributions and Peer-to-Peer Conversations