Appendix A

Appendix: Termination Procedures

Dismissal will be pursuant to the procedures specified below:

1. Recommendations for Dismissal
   Dismissal of a faculty member with tenure, or with a special or probationary appointment before the end of the specified term, will be preceded by:
   1. Discussions between the faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a settlement;
   2. A written recommendation for dismissal, together with a statement of charges framed with reasonable particularity, to be forwarded by the dean to the President and the faculty member at least thirty (30) days in advance of dismissal. The statement of charges shall notify the faculty member of the right of appeal to the University Faculty Grievance Committee and the right to a hearing before the Board of Trustees according to Chapter 164 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. In the event the faculty member chooses to have the appeal held before the University Faculty Grievance Committee in accordance with this section, the faculty member shall so notify the chair of said committee and the President of the University and agree in writing that any further appeal or defense within the University made from the decision of the University Faculty Grievance Committee shall be made and conducted on the record made before the University Faculty Grievance Committee with this being in lieu of a de novo hearing. In the event of a subsequent appeal, the faculty member's right to make a defense before the Board by way of oral argument personally or by counsel shall be unimpaired, but the testimony considered by the Board shall consist of the record made before the University Faculty Grievance Committee and transmitted to the Board of Trustees.
2. Hearing before the University Faculty Grievance Committee
   1. The University Faculty Grievance Committee shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from recommendations for dismissal.
   2. If the aggrieved is to have a hearing, it must be requested in writing to the chair of the Committee within fifteen working days after receipt of notification that the dismissal is to be recommended. Before the hearing begins either party may request that any member of the Committee be disqualified for bias or interest. Requests for disqualification shall be honored if the Committee approves except that Committee approval shall not be required for the first request by either party for one disqualification.
   3. Membership in a faculty from which the appeal originates shall not be automatic grounds for disqualification. In the case of disqualification of a majority of Committee members, alternates shall serve where possible; otherwise replacements for the particular hearing involved shall be drawn by lot from the list of those faculty members who have served on the Committee in the previous five years.
3. Waiver of Hearing
   The faculty member whose dismissal has been recommended may waive a hearing while still retaining the right to respond to the charges by addressing an appeal in writing to the University Faculty Grievance Committee within fifteen working days after receipt of written notification. In such case, the Committee will evaluate all the evidence available to it and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.
4. Rules for the Hearing
   1. The University Faculty Grievance Committee, in consultation with the President and the faculty member involved, will exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private.
   2. During the proceedings, the faculty member will be permitted to have an advisor and counsel of the faculty member's own choosing.
   3. The University Faculty Grievance Committee, on request of either party or on its own initiative, may permit a representative of a responsible professional association to attend the proceedings as an observer.
   4. A record of hearings shall be kept, which shall include a verbatim recording of testimony.
   5. The burden of proof that there is adequate cause for dismissal rests with the University and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.
   6. The University Faculty Grievance Committee will grant reasonable adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.
   7. The faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence, and the administration of the University will, insofar as it is possible for it to do so, secure the cooperation of such witnesses and make available necessary documents and other evidence within its control.
   8. The faculty member and the University will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. All witnesses shall be sworn. When a witness cannot or will not appear, but the Committee determines that the interest of justice requires admission of the witness' statement, the Committee will identify the witness, disclose the statement, and if possible, provide for interrogatories.
   9. The Committee may select a nonmember to preside over a hearing but such a person shall have no vote in the final deliberations.
   10. The Committee will not be bound by strict rules of evidence, and may admit any evidence of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available.
   11. The Committee shall make its findings of fact and decision in executive session based solely on the hearing record.
   12. Except for such simple announcements as may be required governing the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the faculty member or the University will be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the Board of Trustees of the University. The President and the faculty member will be notified in writing of the Committee's decision.
   13. If the Committee concludes that the evidence has not established adequate cause for dismissal in the record, it will so report to the Office of the President. If the Office of the President disagrees with the conclusion of the report, the reasons for doing so will be stated in writing to the committee and to the faculty member, and an opportunity for response will be provided before the President submits any recommendation for dismissal to the Board of Trustees. Any response will be presented with the President's recommendation to the Board.

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

Minimum Guidelines for Faculty Personnel Reviews

SEC. I: PRINCIPLES

1. Only by encouraging the development of a faculty of high quality can a university expect excellence. Appropriate criteria for personnel reviews are essential for the recruitment and retention of quality faculty. Other important factors include criteria for hiring; support from the staff and administration; appropriate standards for admission, retention, and graduation of students; and funds adequate to attract and retain outstanding faculty members and to provide for essential professional development. It should also be clear that unrealistic standards, high or low, for promotion, tenure, and periodic career reviews are counterproductive.
2. This document provides general University-wide guidelines for criteria and procedures for personnel reviews. The Redbook requires units to adopt policy and procedure documents consistent with these guidelines. The Redbook, Sec. 2.5.5, 2.5.8 and 4.2 should be considered in the development of unit documents.
3. The faculty of each unit shall develop a mission statement that must be approved by the dean for submission to the Executive Vice President and University Provost, who may recommend changes to assure consistency with the university mission statement before the unit statement is approved. Departments shall develop a mission statement and specific goals and objectives, approved by the dean, to assist in the systematic accomplishment of the unit mission. Deans shall hold the chair accountable for assuring that the department achieves its mission and contributes to the accomplishment of the unit mission. The Executive Vice President and University Provost shall hold the dean accountable for assuring that the unit achieves its mission and contributes to the accomplishment of the university mission.
4. Annual faculty work plans, as defined in The Redbook, Sec. 4.3.1.A., and a detailed summary of the year's professional effort shall be presented in all personnel reviews under these guidelines. Annual reviews may take into account multi-year performance.
5. All personnel review actions shall follow criteria and procedures consistent with The Redbook and stated in a unit personnel document formally adopted by the unit faculty and approved as provided by The Redbook, Sec. 4.6.3. While unit personnel documents may incorporate by reference other unit documents, those incorporated documents shall be attached as appendices to the main document, and adopted and approved in the same manner as is the unit personnel document. No unincorporated documents shall be considered in faculty personnel reviews.
6. Annual review shall be mandatory for all faculty members. A performance evaluation shall be communicated annually in writing by the chairperson or dean to each faculty member.

SEC. II: STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

1. Personnel reviews shall be based upon peer evaluation of a documentary record that includes qualitative and quantitative evidence (as described in sections following) of performance.
2. Unit personnel documents shall specify the unit officer(s) or committees(s) responsible for evaluating the record submitted. Evaluations shall be in the form of a written statement that will include discursive analysis of performance as substantiated in the documentary record.
3. The faculty of the units shall specify standards and criteria in teaching, research or creative activity, and service. The unit faculty may weight the relative significance of each area to accomplish the goals and requirements of the unit. The unit faculty shall establish minimum levels of satisfactory performance in each area. Proficiency in all three areas shall normally be required of all faculty members, unless responsibility for some area or areas is excepted in the unit document or specified in writing at the time of the initial appointment, or within ninety days of the effective date of these guidelines. Evaluations must consider only those areas of activity for which the approved annual work plan indicates a faculty member's responsibility.

SEC. III: ANNUAL REVIEWS

1. Annual reviews aim to enhance the quality of the faculty by recognizing and rewarding performance in terms of the department's and the unit's goals and objectives. Annual reviews shall become part of the record to be used in the reviews specified in the preamble to The Redbook Article 4.2.
2. Each academic unit shall award salary increases based upon performance as documented in annual reviews. Unit documents establishing the process for awarding such increases shall be consistent with The Redbook and with these Minimum Guidelines.
   1. All decisions concerning salary increases shall be made in accordance with criteria and procedures contained in the unit document adopted by the unit faculty. To assure compliance with these Minimum Guidelines, the unit documents shall be reviewed by the Executive Vice President and University Provostwho, after consulting with the Faculty Senate, shall advise the President on a recommendation to the Board of Trustees concerning the approval of the document.
   2. Based on the approved criteria of the unit, only the faculty whose overall performance is judged to be satisfactory or above will receive a salary increase. These increases shall not be across-the-board, and should reflect an award structure that is based on performance. The amount of the increase will be appropriate to the performance and the size of the pool for salary increases in a given year. A recommendation by the dean for a zero salary increase must be submitted for approval of the Executive Vice President and University Provost. This recommendation shall include the reasons for the zero salary increase and specific suggestions for improving any performance considered to be unsatisfactory. Simultaneously, a copy of the recommendation shall be given to the faculty member involved.
   3. Units, in accordance with criteria and procedures contained in the approved unit document may use up to 5% of the funds allocated to the unit for salary increases for a particular year to award special, one-time payments to faculty members for exceptional effort or achievement beyond that rewarded in the regular salary increase process. In subsequent years these monies shall be carried forward in the unit's salary base for distribution for regular salary increases.
   4. The unit document shall specify criteria and procedures by which annual reviews are related to salary decisions made by the dean of the unit. The unit document shall include each of the following provisions:
      1. a provision guaranteeing the opportunity of each faculty member to present documentation of performance and effort relative to his or her work plan;
      2. a provision for the announcement each year of the date by which such documentation shall be received;
      3. a provision for identification of the faculty person(s) or committee(s) that will make decisions, based upon the results of the annual review, concerning salary increases within the unit;
      4. a statement of the period of performance to be covered in the review for salary increases (e.g., the preceding year, the preceding three years, the period since the last review) so that units may elect to specify a longer period of review in order to avoid penalizing faculty members in years in which there is little or no money available for salary increases.
      5. a provision that faculty members be informed in writing by the chair and/or the dean of the performance evaluations, recommendations for improvement if necessary, and recommendations, if any, for salary increases; each faculty member shall be given opportunity to respond to these recommendations and his or her performance evaluation so that timely adjustments may be made before the dean’s final recommendation;
      6. a provision for a specific process, outside of the formal grievance procedure, to reconsider the performance evaluation and/or salary decision;
      7. a provision that the dean shall report annually to the faculty and to the Executive Vice President and University Provost the frequency distribution of the percentage salary increases received by all faculty members in the unit and a description of the evaluation system used to arrive at such salary increases.
      8. The unit must preserve the annual reviews. Individual faculty members shall be responsible for maintaining the documentary evidence supporting each annual review through the next tenure, promotion or periodic career review.
   5. Unit policies for salary increases may be amended following the same process by which they were adopted.

SEC. IV: TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS

1. Tenure and promotion reviews must be based upon the annual reviews and the documentary evidence compiled therefore but may include additional material as stated in these Guidelines and in approved unit documents. These reviews shall evaluate faculty performance under the distribution of effort indicated in the approved annual work plans (The Redbook Sec. 4.3.1.A).
2. Probationary faculty may receive informal evaluations at any time, and shall receive a formal evaluation no later than the midpoint of the probationary period. The record compiled for pre-tenure review shall be maintained intact as part of the evidence to be considered in tenure review.
3. Promotion reviews shall consider annual reviews and other evidence compiled since the last review for promotion.
4. The unit document must specify standards and procedures for review under the criteria listed in The RedbookSec. 4.2.2.F. and 4.2.3.A. and any other criteria established in the unit document and approved under these Minimum Guidelines. It is imperative that the quality as well as the quantity of performance be considered in each area under evaluation.
   1. The unit document shall specify the standards, procedures and evidence for evaluation of teaching. Evaluations of teaching may also include aspects of instruction other than classroom performance (e.g., advising, counseling, clinical and practicum supervision, textbook writing, and development of distance learning and instructional technology). The unit document shall provide for consideration of self-evaluation, collegial assessment, and student opinion of teaching effectiveness. Teaching load may be a factor in evaluating teaching effectiveness, but it may not be the primary factor.
   2. The unit document shall specify various forms of acceptable research (whether theoretical or applied) and creative activity. They should make provisions for the evaluation of research and creative activity in progress and of those forms of activity that do not result in traditional documentary evidence. All tenure and promotion reviews shall evaluate the research or creative activityin the context of these criteria.
   3. The unit document shall specify the various forms of acceptable service activity. Such service is defined as sharing one's expertise with the University, profession, or community, regardless of the method of compensation, if any. All tenure and promotion reviews shall evaluate the servicein the context of these criteria.
   4. The unit document shall specify standards and procedures for any additional criteria established by the unit.
   5. External evaluation is required for research and creative activity in tenure and promotion review. These evaluations shall be conducted under standards and procedures specified in the unit document under these Minimum Guidelines:
      1. Each unit document must specify the process by which external evaluators shall be solicited. This process shall be designed to certify the professional expertise and objectivity of the evaluators, whose comments regarding the quality of the work under review shall be solicited along with justification of those comments.
      2. The person being reviewed shall have the opportunity to respond in writing to extramural evaluations. This response must be included in the review materials prior to consideration of the evaluation by any reviewing person or body. Each unit shall establish appropriate procedures for the accomplishment of these ends.
      3. The opinions of extramural evaluators shall be given due weight, but external evaluators' recommendations as to the award of tenure or promotion shall not be solicited nor considered if offered. The unit personnel committee shall provide a written analysis of the validity and significance of the evaluations received.
5. Candidates for promotion to associate professor shall demonstrate proficiency in teaching, research, or creative activity and serviceas defined in Sec. II (Standards and Criteria) of this document. Candidates are required to exhibit broad proficiency in all areas, so as to show continuing promise to develop their individual strengths. Units will establish the criteria and standards for teaching, research or creative activity, and service.
6. Candidates for promotion to professor must be evaluated in the areas and by the distribution of effort specified in their approved annual work plans for the period under review.
7. Units may specify additional criteria for promotion to associate or full professor.
8. Each unit shall specify the level of performance required for tenure or promotion, but no unit document approved under these Guidelines shall specify levels of performance below those specified in this document for promotion to associate professor.

SEC. V: PERIODIC CAREER REVIEWS

1. Each unit document shall specify standards and procedures for periodic career review of faculty to promote the continued professional development of the faculty. The evaluation report shall characterize the member's contribution as "satisfactory: meeting unit criteria" or "unsatisfactory: not meeting unit criteria" in teaching, research and service with due regard for the faculty member's annual work plans during the period under review.
2. Faculty members with tenure shall undergo periodic review under the requirements of The Redbook Sec. 4.2.4. This review shall be conducted under the criteria for the faculty member's current rank with due regard for the faculty member's annual work plans during the period under review. The review process shall not extend beyond the unit (or units) of the faculty member's appointment, but the results of such reviews shall be reported annually to the Executive Vice President and University Provost.
3. Tenured faculty members evaluated as "satisfactory: meeting unit criteria" in the appropriate area or areas of faculty activity shall begin the next review cycle in the following academic year. Tenured faculty members evaluated as "unsatisfactory: not meeting unit criteria" shall follow the remediation plan defined in The Redbook Sec. 4.2.4.A.2. and detailed in the unit document.
4. Faculty members with nontenurable appointments may be reappointed for the benefit of the university after a career review under the criteria for appointment to the faculty member's current rank with due regard for the faculty member's annual work plans during the period under review (The Redbook Sec. 4.2.4.B).
5. Because periodic reviews assess performance over a longer period than annual reviews permit, reviewing bodies may recommend a supplementary salary increase to reward demonstrations of professional excellence where evidence of outstanding performance over a long period warrants.
6. All Redbook rights of due process and appeal shall obtain in these reviews.

SEC. VI. SCHEDULE

1. The annual timeline for personnel actions shall observe the requirements for due notice of non-renewal (The Redbook Sec. 4.5.2.). The timeline shall also recognize and accommodate the rights of persons under review to have sufficient time to prepare the materials; the needs of units to solicit extramural reviews, and to receive and evaluate all appropriate evidence; and the interest of the university in maintaining an orderly, clear, and deliberate process for personnel evaluation and action.
2. As early as possible in the year preceding but in no case later than the end of May, the Executive Vice President and University Provost shall announce the dates of Board actions on personnel cases for the Board year beginning in September. The Executive Vice President and University Provost shall also indicate the latest date by which any case must be submitted to the Office of the University Provost in order to be docketed for action on any one of the Board dates so specified. After the Executive Vice President and University Provost’s announcement of the annual schedule, each unit shall be responsible for establishing and publishing its schedule of actions to bring cases to readiness in due time for presentation to the provost.