The Faculty Senate recently amended the faculty handbook to revise the section defining unacceptable performance of duty.

This revision is the third of a string of recent changes to the handbook that began with an examination of the policy for percentage of non-tenure eligible faculty members and the revision to the post-tenure review policy.

The revision has rewritten section 7.2.2.5.1 that originally had “a significant gap in coverage,” according to the Faculty Senate website, and did not adequately define unacceptable performance.

The original section of the handbook described abandonment of post, but did not describe what unacceptable performance of duties entailed, other than briefly referencing the Personal Responsibility Statement.

“These procedures are intended only in cases for which dismissal for unacceptable performance of duty is contemplated after reasonable documented efforts have been made by university, college and departmental officers,” according to the report.

The Faculty Senate also issued a report describing the relationship between the revision of the post-tenure review policy and the recently revised section that stressed the independence of the two sections. However, it did acknowledge the possible connection between post-tenure review and possible labeling of unacceptable performance.

“If a faculty member receives a ‘below expectations’ recommendation from the department post-tenure review committee … the reviewed faculty member must work with the department chair and the chair of the post-tenure review committee to develop a performance improvement plan,” according to the report.

It later states that if the faculty member has not been performing adequately, according to their personal responsibility statement for a period of three to five years, they may be considered to be performing at an unacceptable level.

Therefore, if the faculty member does not make a significant effort to improve his or her performance, then he or she will be charged with unacceptable performance of duty, which can be grounds for dismissal or termination.

The process of being considered unacceptable performance begins when the college dean submits a complaint to the Office of the Provost based on written evidence and documentation of correspondence between the dean, department chair and the accused faculty member.

It is then reviewed by the president of the Faculty Senate and, if approved, sent to a president-appointed review board. Because the process is intended to be an academic, peer review process — rather than an administrative one — the final verdict rests on the decisions of the faculty member’s peers.

The committee can either dismiss the charges or recommend it to another peer review committee that will ultimately decide the accused individual’s fate.

Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Hoffman declined to comment until after the Faculty Senate Executive Board meeting Tuesday afternoon.