See the resolution adopted by the Faculty Senate, April 5, 1999.
COMPOSITE EDITION OF THE TRUSTEES TENURE POLICY & THE EXISTING UTK FACULTY HANDBOOK SECTION ON TENURE
2.14 Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure
2.14.1 Introduction
The Board of Trustees is constituted by statute of the State of Tennessee as the governing body of The University of Tennessee, with complete and full authority over the organization and administration of The University1 and its constituent parts and over the granting of tenure to members of the faculty.
The principal mission of The University is the discovery and dissemination of truth through teaching, research and service2. The Board recognizes that freedom of inquiry and expression is indispensable for this purpose and believes that it and the administration and faculty should cooperate to that end. In The University’s program of teaching, research and service, it is essential that the Board, administration and faculty cooperate voluntarily, each contributing freely, according to his or her qualifications, in a mutually beneficial exchange of information and ideas.
The following statement is intended to record the policy and procedures of The University with respect to academic freedom, responsibility, and tenure. The Board considers these principles compatible with its statutory authority and responsibilities and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and inquiry to each citizen of the United States.
Academic Freedom and Responsibility of the Faculty Member. A healthy tradition of academic freedom and tenure is essential to the proper functioning of a University. At the same time, membership in a society of scholars enjoins upon a faculty member certain obligations to colleagues, to the University and to the State that guarantees academic freedom.
1. The primary responsibility of a faculty member is to use the freedom of his or her office in an honest, courageous, and persistent effort to search out and communicate the truth that lies in the area of his or her competence.
2. A faculty member is entitled to full freedom in research and in publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his or her other academic duties, but research for pecuniary gain either within or beyond the scope of his or her employment must be based upon an understanding with The University administration, according to The University’s policies (e.g., Compensated Outside Services, Conflict of Interest).
3. A faculty member should maintain a high level of personal integrity and professional competence, as demonstrated in teaching, research, and service. Academic freedom does not exempt a faculty member from an evaluation by colleagues and administration of his or her qualifications for continued membership in their society.
4. A faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject, but the faculty member should use care in expressing personal views in the classroom and should be careful not to introduce controversial matters that have no relation to the subject taught, and especially matters in which he or she has no special competence or training and in which, therefore, the faculty member’s views cannot claim the authority accorded his or her professional statements.
5. A faculty member should recognize that the right of academic freedom is enjoyed by all members of the academic community. He or she should be prepared at all times to support actively the right of the individual to freedom of research and communication as defined herein.
6. In addition to the normal responsibilities of a citizen of the state and nation, including the duty to uphold their Constitutions and obey their laws, a faculty member also should conduct himself or herself professionally with colleagues. He or she should strive to maintain the mutual respect and confidence of his or her colleagues. He or she should endeavor to understand the customs, traditions, and usages of the academic community.
7. When, as a citizen, a faculty member speaks outside the classroom or writes for publication, he or she should be free, as a citizen, to express his or her opinions. Each faculty member should conduct himself or herself professionally, should be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make clear that he or she speaks for himself or herself and not for The University.
Academic Freedom and Responsibility of the University Administration.
1. The University is committed to recruiting, appointing, retaining and promoting faculty members by processes which are thorough, thoughtful, equitable, and in which the professional judgments of faculty members are of major importance.
2. Administrative officers should actively foster within The University a climate favorable to freedom of teaching and research. In its pursuit of excellence, The University should reward its outstanding faculty members.
3. The administration is responsible for enforcing all Board and campus policies applicable to faculty members. It is the duty of the administration--beginning with department heads, deans, and chief academic officers--to remove from the faculty any faculty member who has been found, through proper procedures, seriously derelict in his or her responsibilities as a member of the academic community.
4. The Board requires that each campus and its constituent academic units develop appropriate policies and procedures necessary to implement the Board’s tenure policy. These campus and academic unit documents must be approved by the Board of Trustees in time for campus policies and procedures to be effective on 1 July 1999.
Beginning with the paragraph below, policies and procedures specific to The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, are incorporated at appropriate points with the Board of Trustees’ Policies Governing Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure.
At UTK, academic freedom does not mean that accountability is absent. It is the duty of the faculty to make wise and candid judgments about who should become and who should remain a member of their community. One consequence of this principle is that the faculty voice must be primary in the professional evaluation of its peers.
2.14.2 Tenure Definition, Eligibility, and Location
Definition of tenure. Tenure is a principle that entitles a faculty member to continuation of his or her annual appointment until relinquishment or forfeiture of tenure or until termination of tenure for adequate cause, financial exigency, or academic program discontinuance. The burden of proof that tenure should be awarded rests with the faculty member. Tenure at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville is acquired only by positive action of the Board of Trustees, and is awarded in a particular department, school, college, or other academic unit. The award of tenure shifts the burden of proof concerning the faculty member’s continuing appointment from the faculty member to The University.
Eligibility for tenure consideration. Eligibility for tenure consideration shall be subject to the following minimum standards:
1. Regular, full-time, tenure-track faculty appointments at the academic rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor are eligible for tenure;
2. Temporary, term, and part-time appointments are not eligible for tenure;
3. Appointments funded in whole or in part by grants, contracts, or other funds available on a limited term basis (“soft money”) are not eligible for tenure;
4. Faculty members pursuing degrees at the campus where they are appointed are not eligible for tenure.
No faculty member shall be appointed initially with tenure except by positive action of the Board of Trustees upon the recommendation of the President and after review by the tenured faculty and department head, dean, chief academic officer, and Chancellor.
Criteria for Tenure. Tenure is awarded after a thorough review which culminates in The University acknowledging a reasonable presumption of the faculty member’s professional excellence, and the likelihood that excellence will contribute substantially over a considerable period of time to the mission and anticipated needs of the academic unit in which tenure is granted. Professional excellence is reflected in the faculty member’s teaching, research, and service including the faculty member’s ability to interact appropriately with colleagues and students. It is the responsibility of departments and colleges to define professional excellence in terms of their respective disciplines. Recommendations and best practice guidelines are contained in the UTK Manual for Faculty Evaluation. The relative weights of these factors will vary according to the fit between the faculty member and the mission of the academic unit in which he or she is appointed.
More specifically, at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, tenure is granted on the basis of a demonstrated record of achievement and the promise of continued excellence. A decision not to award tenure is not necessarily a judgment of incompetence. Not all competent persons meet the high standards necessary for tenure, nor are all those who meet such standards automatically fitted to serve the needs of the University’s programs. Faculty at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, are expected to become good, solid teachers who work enthusiastically with students, try new approaches to pedagogy, and contribute to the development of departmental programs. Faculty must also establish an independent record of accomplishment in scholarly work, normed to the standards of the discipline, that can be documented and validated by peers. In most cases, tenure-track faculty should be encouraged to develop first as teachers and scholars, leaving serious involvement in service until after a sound academic record is established.
An academic unit may also establish more specific criteria for tenure in that unit. After approval by the dean and campus chief academic officer, these criteria for tenure shall be published in the bylaws of the academic unit. The tenure criteria for a department shall include and be consistent with the criteria stated in this policy and any criteria established by the department’s college and campus.
Location of tenure. Tenure at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is granted in a particular academic unit (e.g., department, school) in a position appropriate to the faculty member’s qualifications. Reorganizations that result in the merger or splitting of departments do not affect the tenure or probationary status of the faculty involved.
If a tenured faculty member voluntarily transfers from one UT campus to another, his or her tenured status is not transferred. However, a review by the responsible administrators in consultation with the tenured faculty of the receiving department may result in an immediate recommendation to the Board of Trustees that tenure at the new campus be granted to the transferred individual; on the other hand, a new probationary period in the receiving unit may be established. There shall be no involuntary transfer of faculty members between campuses.
Transfers of tenure between departments at UT Knoxville do not require Board approval, but must be approved by the responsible campus administrators in consultation with the tenured faculty of the receiving unit, with notice to the Board of Trustees. In any event, prior to the effective date of the transfer all conditions relating to tenure must be documented and accepted, in writing, by the transferring faculty member. If a non-tenured faculty member transfers from one existing department to another, a new probationary period must be established and documented under the same guidelines that would be followed if the faculty member came from another institution. All conditions relating to the new probationary period must be documented and accepted, in writing, by the transferring faculty member.
If a tenured faculty member accepts a part-time faculty position at UTK or an administrative position with The University of Tennessee, Knoxville or university-wide administration, neither of which can carry tenure, the faculty member retains tenure in the full-time faculty position he or she vacated.
2.14.3 Probationary Period
Length of the probationary period. A tenure-track faculty member must serve a probationary period prior to being considered for tenure. The probationary period at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville shall be no less than one and no more than seven academic years; however, for good cause, the President, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, may approve a probationary period of less than one academic year. If a faculty member has served in a tenure-track appointment at another institution, his or her total probationary service may extend beyond seven years. (For example, a person who has served five years elsewhere may be given a four-year probationary period at UTK. In no case, however, will the probationary period at UTK exceed seven years.) The original appointment letter shall state the length of the faculty member’s probationary period and the academic year in which he or she must be considered for tenure if he or she has met the minimum eligibility requirements for consideration. The stipulation in the original appointment letter of the length of the probationary period and the year of mandatory tenure consideration does not guarantee retention until that time.
For good cause related to procedural error, The University and a tenure-track faculty member may agree in writing to extend a seven-year probationary period for a maximum of two additional years. The proposed extension must be approved in advance by the chief academic officer, the Chancellor, the Senior Vice President (or designee), and the General Counsel (or designee).
Suspension of Probationary Period. The chief academic officer shall decide whether the probationary period will be suspended when the following circumstances occur:
a. the faculty member accepts a part-time faculty position;
b. the faculty member accepts an administrative position; or
c. the faculty member is granted a leave of absence under the UTK Family Care Policy.
In general, the chief academic officer will not approve extensions for work that advances the faculty member’s record in teaching, research, or service. Probationary faculty should not be encouraged to engage in administrative work. The chief academic officer shall give the faculty member written notice of the decision concerning suspension of the probationary period.
Notice of Non-renewal. Notice that a tenure-track faculty member’s appointment will not be renewed for the next year shall be made in writing by the chief academic officer, upon the recommendation of the department head and dean, according to the following schedule:
a. In the first year of the probationary period, not later than March 1 for an academic year appointment and no less than three months in advance for any other term of appointment;
b. In the second year of the probationary period, not later than December 15 for an academic year appointment and no less than six months in advance for any other term of appointment; and
c. In the third and subsequent years of the probationary period, not less than twelve months in advance.
These notice requirements relate only to service in a probationary period with The University. Credit for prior service shall not be considered in determining the required notice. Notice of non-renewal shall be effective upon personal delivery or upon mailing, postage prepaid, to the faculty member’s residential address of record at The University.
Annual retention review. An annual retention review of tenure-track faculty is conducted by the Department Head in consultation with the tenured faculty. The Head will convey the outcome of this review to the candidate in writing and in a timely manner. The Head will also advise the faculty member as to the time remaining in the probationary period and as to how the quality of his or her performance is likely to ne assessed by the tenured faculty and the Head. If after informal consultation it appears to the Head that retention is not in doubt, the Head will confirm this finding in writing to the Dean, and no formal faculty meeting or vote is necessary. If it appears to the Head that retention is in doubt, the tenure-track faculty member will be notified and allowed sufficient time to present relevant material. After review of this material, a formal retention vote of the tenured faculty will be taken. The result of the vote will be included in the Head’s written recommendation to the Dean as to retention or non-retention. After making an independent judgment on retention, the Dean shall forward his or her recommendation for retention or non-retention to the chief academic officer.
All retention recommendations, whether positive or negative, shall be reviewed by the chief academic officer. The chief academic officer shall make the final decision on retention. If the decision is negative, the chief academic officer shall give the faculty member written notice of non-renewal in accordance with the notice requirements described above in Notice of Non-renewal. Upon request made to the chief academic officer, the faculty member is entitled to a statement, in writing if so requested, of the reasons for the non-renewal decision. This statement, together with subsequent correspondence concerning the reasons, will become a part of the official record.
2.14.4 Procedures for Consideration and Grant of Tenure
Schedule for tenure consideration. The review cycle for tenure consideration begins in the Fall Term (with notification and the submission of materials described below) and in the case of a positive decision, is complete upon the action of the Board of Trustees the following June. In the case of a negative decision, the cycle is complete upon the decision of the Chancellor.
Notification of tenure consideration. The Academic Affairs Office notifies a tenure-track faculty member of the schedule for his or her tenure consideration so there will be opportunity for the faculty member to submit materials relevant to tenure consideration. The notice specifies the date by which the faculty member must submit relevant material.
Submission of materials. The faculty member must submit material relevant to consideration for tenure on or before the date specified in the notice from the Academic Affairs Office. Before the tenure review file is presented to the departmental faculty for review, the faculty member must attest in writing that he or she has inspected the file (excluding external reference letters). The candidate is to be informed of any additions made to his/her file after handing it in and be given an opportunity to review and respond to the addition at any stage of the process. The candidate has a right to review his/her file at any stage of the process.
External references. After consultation with the faculty member, the Department Head will seek the advice of at least three and preferably four to six persons not on the faculty of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, whose expertise is close to that of the candidate and who are willing to provide thoughtful evaluation of the candidate’s written work or other suitable evidence of scholarly and/or creative research performance. None of these references may be the former thesis advisor, postdoctoral mentor, or a collaborator.
Tenured Faculty’s Recommendation. An adequate evaluation of a tenure candidate’s qualifications, professional contributions, potential, and determination of whether he or she should be accepted as a tenured member of the campus academic community, requires the judgment of both the candidate’s faculty colleagues and the responsible administrators. Thus, although recommendations for tenure are administrative actions that must be approved by the Board of Trustees, there should be no positive recommendation for tenure without formal consultation with the tenured faculty of the department, school, or college in which the candidate holds his or her position.
Each department, school, or college shall adopt bylaws governing the tenured faculty’s consideration of a candidate for tenure. The bylaws shall provide for a meeting of the tenured faculty to debate and discuss the tenure candidacy. The bylaws shall also provide for the manner of taking and recording a formal vote of the tenured faculty on whether the candidate should be recommended for tenure and shall establish the minimum number of votes necessary to constitute a positive recommendation. A written summary of the tenured faculty’s deliberation, in addition to a formal record of the vote, is required to help the department head understand positive and negative considerations for tenure and must be kept on file in accordance with university policies. Departments must have ballots with space for written comments on strengths and weaknesses along with space for recording the vote.
Department Head’s Recommendation. The vote of the tenured faculty is advisory to the department head. After making an independent judgment on the tenure candidacy, the head shall submit his or her recommendation simultaneously to the dean and to the tenure candidate with a written summary of his or her judgment. If the head’s recommendation differs from the recommendation of the tenured faculty, the summary must explain the reasons for the differing judgment, and the head must provide a copy of the summary to the tenured faculty. Tenured faculty, individually or collectively, may forward a report supporting or opposing the granting of tenure to the next level of review3.
Collegiate Review. Each college shall establish a college-wide committee of the tenured faculty to make an independent review of tenure and promotion documents received from departments and then to advise the dean on recommendations for tenure and promotion. The Committee will limit its deliberations to the review of the content of the complete file as forwarded by the Dean. If material not reviewed by the tenured faculty is submitted, either through the Dean or independently, the Committee may not consider it unless the Committee decides to make that material available to the tenured faculty, the Department Head, and the candidate. It is the responsibility of the Committee Chair to see that any additional material is reviewed by all three parties in the manner stipulated. The recommendation of the college-wide committee shall be advisory to the Dean.
Dean’s Recommendation. All tenure recommendations of the department head, whether positive or negative, shall be reviewed by the Dean of the college. After making an independent judgment on the tenure candidacy, the dean shall forward his or her recommendation simultaneously to the chief academic officer and to the tenure candidate.
Chief Academic Officer’s Recommendation. All tenure recommendations of the dean, whether positive or negative, shall be reviewed by the chief academic officer. After making an independent judgment on the tenure candidacy, the chief academic officer shall inform the candidate of the decision made and forward his or her recommendation to the Chancellor.
Chancellor’s Recommendation. All tenure recommendations of the chief academic officer, whether positive or negative, shall be reviewed by the Chancellor. After making an independent judgment on the tenure candidacy, the Chancellor shall inform the candidate of the decision and forward only positive recommendations to the President.
Upon request made to the chief academic officer, a faculty member who has received notice of tenure denial is entitled to a statement by the chief academic officer, in writing if so requested, of the reasons for denial of tenure. This statement, together with subsequent correspondence concerning the reasons, will become a part of the official record.
President’s Recommendation. If the President concurs in the positive recommendation of the Chancellor, he or she shall submit the recommendation for tenure to the Board of Trustees.
Action by the Board of Trustees. No person shall acquire or be granted tenure except by positive action of the Board of Trustees upon the recommendation of the President. The Board of Trustees acts only on positive recommendations. After positive action by the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor shall give the faculty member written notice of the effective date of tenure.
2.14.5 Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Members
Competent teaching is a crucial responsibility for faculty members, and the effective use of appropriate instructional evaluation (including departmental files of class syllabi and related materials, student evaluation, and peer evaluation) is important to all objective review processes. Faculty members with research responsibilities should have the quantity and quality of their work fairly assessed. Each faculty member’s service contributions should be evaluated impartially.
Annual Performance-and-Planning Review. Each faculty member and his or her department head will engage in a formal annual performance-and-planning review, examining the previous year’s activities in teaching, research/creative activity, and service and planning what should occur during the coming year. The results of these evaluations will be used to reward faculty performance. Each faculty member’s Annual Performance-and-Planning review should proceed from guidelines and criteria contained in the UTK Manual for Faculty Evaluation and departmental and collegiate by-laws that are appropriate to the department, college, and campus. A document summarizing the review will include an overall rating of the faculty member’s performance as exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, needs improvement for rank, or unsatisfactory performance for rank. This document must be signed by the faculty member (to acknowledge receipt of the review document) and the department head. Copies must be provided to the faculty member and sent to the dean. Signing the form does not necessarily indicate the faculty member’s agreement with the content of the document. The faculty member may submit a rebuttal to the evaluation. Copies of the rebuttals are also sent to the dean. A faculty member whose performance is deemed to need improvement must consult with the department head to develop a written statement of area(s) needing attention. A faculty member whose performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory shall be ineligible for rewards and must provide to the department head a written interim progress report of developmental steps taken to improve performance in area(s) noted as unsatisfactory. The dean must review and concur with any unsatisfactory rating. Thereafter, the dean must notify the campus chief academic officer of all faculty members whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory.
Cumulative Performance Review. There shall be comprehensive, formal, cumulative, performance reviews of all tenured faculty members to promote faculty development and to ensure professional vitality. Cumulative Reviews shall occur regularly every five years. (A promotion review shall substitute for the Cumulative Review if the promotion review is anticipated to occur within 2 years of a scheduled Cumulative Review. In no case shall more than 7 years elapse between Cumulative Reviews.) Cumulative Reviews are based on information from the faculty member’s annual reviews, information concerning his or her performance during the immediately preceding year, and any other information specified in departmental by-laws as relevant to performance expectations for the faculty member in teaching, advising, research/ scholarship/ creative activity, and service. Cumulative Reviews are normally conducted during the Spring Semester. After consulting with the faculty member and departmental faculty at the same or higher rank, the department head shall appoint a three-person peer review committee. One member of the peer review committee should come from outside the department. The peer review committee shall examine the relevant information and shall make an evaluation of the faculty member’s performance in the categories of teaching, advising, research/ scholarship/ creative activity, and service. The committee shall then reach an overall assessment of the faculty member’s performance, using the four categories of exceeds expectations for rank, meets expectations for rank, needs improvement for rank, or unsatisfactory performance for rank, and comment on specific strengths and weaknesses in performance. The decision to assign an unsatisfactory cumulative review rating must be supported by the record of annual reviews since the last cumulative review. The report from the peer review committee is advisory to the department head, who then makes his or her own assessment and prepares a summary report according to a form developed by the campus to evaluate the faculty member’s performance. The faculty member being reviewed shall be provided the opportunity to read and comment on the evaluation by the peer review committee when it is forwarded to the department head and to read and comment on the evaluation by the department head. All reports and comments on them shall be maintained in personnel files in the department, with copies provided to the dean’s office. Faculty members whose performance is found through the cumulative review process to exceed or meet expectations for rank are eligible for pay increments according to levels established by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. A faculty member whose performance is deemed to need improvement must consult with the department head to develop a written statement of area(s) needing attention. A faculty member whose performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory in a single cumulative review shall be reviewed further in accordance with the following provisions concerning Unsatisfactory Performance.
Unsatisfactory Performance. A rigorous and thorough review shall be made of any faculty member whose performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory in a single cumulative review or in two consecutive Annual Performance-and-Planning Reviews. A Review Committee shall be convened by the department head within thirty days of the Dean’s concurrence with an unsatisfactory cumulative review or a second unsatisfactory annual review, and shall be composed of the department head, tenured departmental faculty members at the same or higher rank, and faculty and administrative staff from outside the department. The Review Committee shall be composed of seven members and reach its decisions by majority vote. If a faculty member is evaluated by the Review Committee as unsatisfactory, the department head, dean, chief academic officer, and Faculty Senate President or Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall reach consensus on one of two actions:
a. recommend that the Chancellor initiate proceedings to terminate the faculty member for adequate cause; or
b. develop with the affected faculty member a written remediation plan (e.g., skill-development leave of absence, intensive mentoring, curtailment of outside services, change in load/ responsibilities) normally of up to one calendar year, and a means of their assessing its efficacy. At the end of the remediation period, the Review Committee, dean, chief academic officer, and Faculty Senate President or the Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall send a written report to the campus Chancellor, recommending:
(i) that the faculty member’s performance is no longer unsatisfactory; or
(ii) that the Chancellor initiate proceedings to terminate the faculty member for adequate cause.
2.14.6 Grounds for Termination of Tenure
Relinquishment or forfeiture of tenure. A tenured faculty member relinquishes tenure upon resignation or retirement from The University. A tenured faculty member forfeits tenure upon taking an unauthorized leave of absence or failing to resume the duties of his or her position following an approved leave of absence. Forfeiture results in automatic termination of employment. The chief academic officer shall give the faculty member written notice of the forfeiture of tenure and termination of employment.
Extraordinary Circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances warranting termination of tenure may involve either financial exigency or academic program discontinuance. In the case of financial exigency, the criteria and procedures outlined in the Board-approved Financial Exigency Plan shall be followed. In the case of academic program discontinuance, the termination of tenured faculty may take place only after consultation with the faculty through appropriate committees of the department, the college, and the Faculty Senate.
If termination of tenured faculty positions becomes necessary because of financial exigency or academic program discontinuance, the campus administration shall attempt to place each displaced tenured faculty member in another suitable position. This does not require that a faculty member be placed in a position for which he or she is not qualified, that a new position be created where no need exists, or that a faculty member (tenured or non-tenured) in another department be terminated in order to provide a vacancy for a displaced tenured faculty member. The position of any tenured faculty member displaced because of financial exigency or academic program discontinuance shall not be filled within three years, unless the displaced faculty member has been offered reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline the offer.
Adequate Cause. “Adequate cause” includes the following and similar types of reasons:
Category A: Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service
(i) failure to demonstrate professional competence in assigned roles in teaching, research, or service;
(ii) failure to perform satisfactorily the duties or responsibilities of the faculty position, including but not limited to (a) failure to comply with a lawful directive of the department head, dean, or chief academic officer with respect to the faculty member’s duties or responsibilities; and (b) inability to perform an essential function of the faculty position, given reasonable accommodation, if requested;
(iii) loss of professional licensure if licensure is required for the performance of the faculty member’s duties; or with respect to Health Sciences faculty, failure to be granted or loss of medical staff membership and privileges at affiliated teaching hospitals; or
(iv) dishonesty or other serious violation of professional ethics or responsibility in teaching, research, or service; or serious violation of professional responsibility in relations with students, employees, or members of the community.
Category B: Misconduct
(i) failure or persistent neglect to comply with University policies, procedures, rules, or other regulations, including but not limited to violation of The University’s policies against discrimination and harassment;
(ii) falsification of a University record, including but not limited to information concerning the faculty member’s qualifications for a position or promotion;
(iii) theft or misappropriation of University funds, property, services, or other resources;
(iv) admission of guilt or conviction of: (i) a felony; or (ii) a non-felony directly related to the fitness of a faculty member to engage in teaching, research, service, or administration;
(v) any misconduct directly related to the fitness of the faculty member to engage in teaching, research, service, or administration.
2.14.7 Termination Procedures for Adequate Cause Category A: Unsatisfactory Performance in Teaching, Research, or Service
Preliminary steps. The following preliminary steps shall be followed in cases of termination for unsatisfactory performance in the faculty member’s assigned role in teaching, research, or service, unless the faculty member has been under a remediation plan as described in the Unsatisfactory Performance section above. If a faculty member has been under a remediation plan and the Review Committee, dean, chief academic officer, and Faculty Senate President or Faculty Senate Executive Committee recommend initiation of termination proceedings, the Chancellor shall proceed to consult with the President and to decide whether to initiate termination proceedings without following these preliminary steps.
1. Tenured Faculty’s Recommendation. The department head shall direct the tenured departmental faculty to review the faculty member’s performance in teaching, research, and service and to vote on the question of whether termination proceedings should be initiated. The faculty vote shall be advisory to the department head and communicated to the head in writing.
2. Department Head’s Recommendation. If the department head concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall forward a recommendation simultaneously to the dean and the chief academic officer. The head’s recommendation shall include the history of efforts to encourage and assist the faculty member to improve his or her performance, the reasons for recommending that termination proceedings be initiated, and the vote of the tenured faculty on the question of whether proceedings should be initiated.
3. Dean’s Recommendation. If the dean concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall forward a recommendation to the chief academic officer.
4. Chief Academic Officer’s Recommendation. If the chief academic officer concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall call the faculty member to a meeting to discuss a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. If a mutually satisfactory resolution is not achieved, the chief academic officer shall within thirty days ask the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee to conduct an informal inquiry and make a recommendation to him or her within thirty days as to whether termination proceedings should be initiated. The recommendation of the Faculty Senate shall be advisory to the chief academic officer. After considering the recommendation of the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, the chief academic officer shall make a written recommendation to the Chancellor as to whether termination proceedings should be initiated.
Chancellor’s Decision to Initiate Termination Proceedings. If, after consulting with the President, the Chancellor decides to initiate termination proceedings, he or she shall give the faculty member written notice, including (1) a statement of the grounds for termination, framed with reasonable particularity; (2) notice of the faculty member’s right to contest the proposed termination in a hearing before a tribunal, as described below, or in a hearing conducted under the provisions of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act; and (3) notice that the faculty member has ten days after receipt of the written notice to elect in writing to contest the termination and to elect in writing the form of hearing. The Chancellor shall send a copy of the written notice to the Faculty Senate President and chair of the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee at the same time.
Suspension With Pay or Reassignment Pending Completion of Termination Proceedings. After consultation with the President of the Faculty Senate or the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Chancellor may suspend the faculty member with pay, or change his or her assignment of duties, pending completion of The University’s termination proceedings.
Failure to Contest. If the faculty member does not contest the charge(s) in writing and make the required hearing election within ten days after receipt of the written notice from the Chancellor, the faculty member shall be terminated, and no appeal of the matter will be heard within The University.
Hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. If the faculty member makes a timely election to contest the charge(s) under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (TUAPA), the Chancellor shall appoint a hearing examiner, and the matter shall proceed in accordance with the contested case procedures promulgated by The University under the TUAPA. The TUAPA contested case procedures are published in the Rules and Regulations of the State of Tennessee and are available in campus libraries and in the Office of the General Counsel. In accordance with the TUAPA contested case procedures, upon completion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall render an initial order, which either party may appeal to the Chancellor within ten days. In addition, the Chancellor, on his or her own motion, may elect within ten days to review the hearing officer’s initial order. The hearing examiner’s initial order shall become the final order unless review is sought by either party or the Chancellor within the ten-day period. If review is sought, the Chancellor shall review the initial order and issue a final order in accordance with applicable provisions of the TUAPA contested case procedures. The final order, whether rendered by the Chancellor or by virtue of neither party appealing the initial order, shall be the final decision on the charge(s) within The University. If the final order is unfavorable to the faculty member, he or she is entitled to judicial review of the final order in accordance with applicable provisions of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.
Hearing before a Tribunal. If the faculty member makes a timely election to contest the charge(s) and to waive the right to a hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, the Chancellor shall ask the Faculty Senate President to appoint a hearing tribunal within fifteen days and shall notify the faculty member in writing of this action. The matter then shall proceed in accordance with the tribunal procedures described below.
A. Composition of the Tribunal. The University tribunal shall consist of five members of the tenured faculty and the administration. Members of the administration who are members of the tribunal must also hold tenure, and the majority of the tribunal must be full-time faculty members. The tribunal shall select its own chair. Either the Chancellor or the faculty member may challenge the appointment of a tribunal member on the ground of bias or conflict of interest. A challenge shall be judged by the Faculty Senate, or a designated committee of the Senate, whose decision on the challenge shall be final and not subject to appeal.
B. Notice of hearing. The Chancellor shall give the faculty member written notice of the hearing date at least 20 days in advance.
C. Representation. If The University intends to be represented by legal counsel, the written notice of the hearing date shall so advise the faculty member. The written notice shall also state the faculty member’s right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative of his or her choice. If the faculty member intends to be represented by legal counsel, he or she must notify the tribunal chairperson within ten days of receipt of the written notice of the hearing date. If the faculty member fails to give timely notice of legal representation, the hearing date shall be postponed at The University’s request.
D. Waiver of Hearing. If, at any time prior to the hearing date, the faculty member decides to waive his or her right to a hearing and respond to the charges only in writing, the tribunal shall proceed to evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.
E. Pre-Hearing Preparation. The faculty member and The University shall have a reasonable opportunity prior to the hearing to obtain witnesses, specific documents, or other specific evidence reasonably related to the charge(s).
F. Evidence. The tribunal is not bound by legal rules of evidence and may admit any evidence of probative value in determining the issues. The tribunal shall make every reasonable effort, however, to base its recommendation on the most reliable evidence. If the charge is “failure to demonstrate professional competence in assigned roles in teaching, research, or service,” the evidence shall include the testimony of qualified faculty members from this and/or other comparable institutions of higher education.
G. Confrontation and Cross-Examination of Witnesses. The faculty member and The University shall have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. If a witness cannot or will not appear, but the tribunal determines that his or her testimony is necessary to a fair adjudication of the charge(s), the tribunal may admit as evidence the sworn affidavit of the witness. In that event, the tribunal shall disclose the affidavit to both parties and allow both parties to submit written interrogatories to the witness.
H. Adjournments. The tribunal shall grant adjournments to allow either party to investigate evidence to which a valid claim of surprise is made.
I. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with The University and shall be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.
J. Findings and Conclusions. The tribunal shall make written findings and conclusions and shall provide a copy to the faculty member at the time of submission to the Chancellor.
1. If the tribunal concludes adequate cause for termination has not been established, it shall so report to the Chancellor.
2. If the tribunal concludes adequate cause for termination has been established but that a sanction other than termination should be imposed, it shall so recommend to the Chancellor, with supporting reasons.
3. If the tribunal concludes adequate cause for termination has been established and that termination is the appropriate sanction, it shall so report to the Chancellor.
K. Transcript of the Hearing. A verbatim record of the hearing shall be made, and a transcript shall be provided to the faculty member and the Chancellor at the time of the tribunal’s submission of its findings and conclusions.
Chancellor’s Recommendation on Termination. If the Chancellor concludes adequate cause has been established and that termination is the appropriate sanction, he or she shall transmit the hearing record and his or her recommendation to the Board of Trustees through the President. However, if the conclusion of the Chancellor differs from that of the tribunal, the Chancellor shall give the tribunal and the faculty member a written statement of reasons and shall allow the faculty member an opportunity to respond before transmitting the case to the President and Board of Trustees. If the Chancellor concludes adequate cause has been established but that a sanction other than termination should be imposed, the Chancellor may impose the lesser sanction. The faculty member may appeal the lesser sanction to the President.
Review by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees shall review a recommendation of termination for adequate cause on the record of the tribunal hearing. The Board shall provide an opportunity for oral and written argument by the parties. The faculty member and The University may be represented before the Board by legal counsel or other representative. If the Board concludes adequate cause has been established and that the faculty member’s tenure and employment should be terminated, the Board shall set the effective date of termination.
2.14.8 Termination Procedures for Category B Adequate Cause: Misconduct
Preliminary steps.
1. Consultation with the tenured faculty. The department head shall consult with the tenured faculty before making a recommendation that termination proceedings be initiated against a tenured faculty member for alleged misconduct within the Category B definition of adequate cause.
2. Department Head’s Recommendation. If the department head concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall forward a written recommendation simultaneously to the dean and the chief academic officer. At the same time, the department head shall send a copy of his or her recommendation to the faculty member. The recommendation shall include a report of the head’s consultation with the tenured faculty.
3. Dean’s Recommendation. If the dean concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall forward a written recommendation to the chief academic officer.
4. Chief Academic Officer’s Recommendation. If the chief academic officer concludes termination proceedings should be initiated, he or she shall call the faculty member to a meeting to discuss a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. If a mutually satisfactory resolution is not achieved, the chief academic officer shall make a written recommendation to the Chancellor as to whether termination proceedings should be initiated.
Chancellor’s Decision to Initiate Termination Proceedings. If, after consultation with the President, the Chancellor decides to initiate termination proceedings, he or she shall give the faculty member written notice, including (1) a statement of the grounds for termination, framed with reasonable particularity; (2) notice of the faculty member’s right to contest the proposed termination in a hearing under the provisions of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act: and (3) notice that the faculty member has ten days after receipt of the written notice to elect in writing to contest the termination. The Chancellor shall send a copy of the written notice to the Faculty Senate President at the same time.
Suspension with Pay or Reassignment Pending Completion of Termination Proceedings. After consultation with the President of the Faculty Senate or the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Chancellor may suspend the faculty member with pay, or change his or her assignment of duties, pending completion of The University’s termination proceedings.
Suspension without Pay Pending Completion of Termination Proceedings. After consultation with the President of The University and the President of the Faculty Senate or the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Chancellor may suspend the faculty member without pay only for the following types of alleged misconduct and only in accordance with the procedures outlined in the section of this policy entitled “Expedited Procedure for Termination or Suspension Without Pay in Certain Cases of Misconduct:”
1. alleged misconduct involving: (i) acts or credible threats of harm to a person or University property; or (ii) theft or misappropriation of University funds, property, services, or other resources; or
2. indictment by a state or federal grand jury, or arrest and charge pursuant to state or federal criminal procedure, for: (i) a felony; or (ii) a non-felony directly related to the fitness of a faculty member to engage in teaching, research, service, or administration.
Failure to Contest. If the faculty member does not contest the charge(s) of misconduct in writing within ten days after receipt of the written notice, the faculty member shall be terminated, and no appeal of the matter will be heard within The University.
Waiver of Hearing Under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. If the faculty member contests the charge(s) of misconduct but elects to waive his or her right to formal hearing under the contested case procedures of the TUAPA, the Chancellor shall appoint an ad hoc hearing committee to conduct an informal hearing on the charges. The faculty member has the opportunity to challenge the appointment of hearing committee members on the grounds of bias or conflict of interest and may be represented before the hearing committee by legal counsel or other representative of his or her choice. If the faculty member intends to be represented by legal counsel, he or she must notify the committee chairperson within ten days of the hearing date. If the faculty member fails to give timely notice of legal representation, the hearing date shall be postponed at The University’s request.
The hearing committee shall make a written report of its findings and conclusions to the Chancellor. If the Chancellor decides adequate cause for termination of tenure and employment has been established, he or she shall submit a written recommendation of termination to the Board of Trustees through the President. If the Chancellor decides a lesser sanction should be imposed, he or she may impose the sanction. The faculty member may appeal the lesser sanction to the President.
Hearing under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. If the faculty member makes a timely election to contest the charge(s) under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (TUAPA), the Chancellor shall appoint a hearing examiner, and the matter shall proceed in accordance with the contested case procedures promulgated by The University under the TUAPA. The TUAPA contested case procedures are published in the Rules and Regulations of the State of Tennessee and are available in University libraries and in the Office of the General Counsel. In accordance with the TUAPA contested case procedures, upon completion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall render an initial order, which either party may appeal to the Chancellor within ten days. In addition, the Chancellor, on his or her own motion, may elect within ten days to review the hearing officer’s initial order. The hearing examiner’s initial order shall become the final order unless review is sought by either party or the Chancellor within the ten-day period. If review is sought, the Chancellor shall review the initial order and issue a final order in accordance with applicable provisions of the TUAPA contested case procedures. The final order, whether rendered by the Chancellor or by virtue of neither party appealing the initial order, shall be the final decision on the charge(s) within The University. If the final order is unfavorable to the faculty member, he or she is entitled to judicial review of the final order in accordance with applicable provisions of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.
2.14.9 Expedited Procedure for Termination or Suspension Without Pay in Certain Cases of Misconduct
In the following cases of alleged misconduct by a faculty member, the Chancellor, after consulting with the President of The University and the President of the Faculty Senate or the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, may invoke an expedited procedure to accomplish termination or suspension without pay, with comprehensive due process procedures to be offered after termination or suspension without pay:
A. alleged misconduct involving: (i) acts or credible threats of harm to a person or University property; or (ii) theft or misappropriation of University funds, property, services, or other resources; or
B. indictment by a state or federal grand jury, or arrest and charge pursuant to state or federal criminal procedure, for: (i) a felony; or (ii) a non-felony directly related to the fitness of a faculty member to engage in teaching, research, service, or administration.
Under the expedited procedure, the faculty member shall be offered the following process before termination or suspension without pay:
(1) a written notice of the charges and the basis for the charges by the Chancellor;
(2) an explanation of the evidence; and
(3) an informal opportunity to refute the charges in a meeting with the campus chief academic officer.
After termination or suspension without pay, the faculty member shall be offered the full range of due process options available to faculty members in other adequate cause proceedings.
2.14.10 Disciplinary Sanctions Other than Termination for Adequate Cause
Disciplinary sanctions other than termination for adequate cause as defined in Section 2.14.6 may be imposed against a faculty member. If the proposed sanction is suspension without pay for a definite term (no more than one year), the procedures applicable to termination shall be offered prior to suspension, provided, however, that the procedures shall be modified as follows: (1) suspension without pay for a definite term (no more than one year) may be imposed as a sanction by the Chancellor without review by the President and the Board of Trustees; and (2) the Chancellor may determine that the expedited procedure for suspension without pay is applicable to the conduct (see preceding section concerning the expedited procedure).
If the proposed sanction does not involve suspension without pay, the department head shall make a recommendation to the dean, and the dean shall make a recommendation to the chief academic officer. The chief academic officer shall give the faculty member written notice of the proposed sanction and the supporting reason(s) and shall offer him or her an opportunity to respond both in writing and in person. The faculty member may appeal the proposed sanction through established appeal procedures, and the sanction shall be held in abeyance until conclusion of the appeal.
1 Many terms throughout this document are used generically. "The University" refers to The University of Tennessee. "Campus" refers to the primary campuses of The University, the UT Institute of Agriculture, and the UT Space Institute. "Chancellor" refers to the Chancellor or Vice President of the unit. "Department" refers to the smallest academic unit (in some cases a "college," "school," or "division"); similarly, "department head" refers to "chair," "director," or "dean" as appropriate. "Faculty Senate" refers to the UTC, UTK, UTM, UTMem, and UTIA campus governance body of elected faculty members, and "Faculty Senate Executive Committee" refers to that committee or its comparable group of elected Senate officers. "Chief Academic Officer" refers to the campus provost, academic vice chancellor, or dean, etc.
2 The word "teaching" includes the set of instructional activities that normally occurs in classrooms, laboratories, clinical sites, and in directed study, etc; "research" includes both scholarly investigation and the creation of works of art related to a faculty member’s academic appointment; and "service" includes public service, institutional service, and other assigned professional/clinical service responsibilities.
3 In interdisciplinary, interdepartmental, and intercollegiate programs of study, the tenured faculty shall consider a candidate for tenure and make a recommendation to the program chairperson or director in accordance with the procedures applicable to departments. The program chairperson or director will make a recommendation to the next administrative level in accordance with the procedures applicable to department heads.
To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.
