Faculty Handbook

CONDITIONS OF FACULTY EMPLOYMENT

• Faculty Appointments, Tenure, and Academic Freedom
• Conditions of Faculty Appointment
• University-wide Policy on Salaries, Reappointments, and Promotions
• Faculty Evaluation Procedures
• Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
• Promotion to Professor
• Discipline Short of Dismissal
• Dismissal Procedures
• Retirement Policy

     As stated in the Bylaws, "the FACULTY shall consist of only those full-time personnel appointed under one of the following designations: President, Provost, Associate Provost, Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, or Instructor. The academic deans shall also be members of the faculty. Other employees of the University who have the privilege of teaching or research may be so designated by the Provost or President upon recommendation of the respective dean. Faculty in phased retirement shall also be considered faculty. As used in these bylaws, the term "Faculty" or "University Faculty" means the University faculty except where the reference is explicitly to the law or undergraduate faculty." The definition of Faculty here is not the same as the description of persons entitled to participate in meetings of the Faculty. (See Bylaws, Chapter IV, Section 5.)

     For appointment procedures that apply to Athletic Department or Law School faculty, see the publications entitled "Athletic Department Faculty Appointment-Promotion Guidelines" (Appendix A) and "Law School Faculty Appointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures" (Appendix B). The University-wide procedures governing faculty appointment, tenure and promotion set forth in this section also apply to Athletic or Law faculty except to the extent they are inconsistent with the Athletic or Law faculty procedures.

     a. A term appointment is an appointment for a specified period of time (one or more years). Ordinarily, a tenure appointment is preceded by one or more term appointments.

     b. For persons initially appointed to the rank of Instructor or Assistant Professor, the total period of service on term appointment(s) will ordinarily not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education. However, where a new appointee has previously served on the faculty of another institution for more than three years, it may be agreed in writing that the total period of term appointments at Washington and Lee may be as long as four years, even though thereby the appointee ’s total period of term service in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal seven years.

     c. For persons initially appointed to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor at Washington and Lee, the total period of service on term appointment(s) at Washington and Lee shall not exceed two years.

     d. Any appointment or reappointment which extends beyond the applicable time period set forth in paragraphs b. or c. above will be deemed a tenure appointment unless the terms of the position were otherwise defined in writing. Furthermore, a promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, following an initial appointment to a lower rank, will be deemed to confer tenure unless accompanied by an explicit written agreement to the contrary.

     e. When appropriate officials of the University decide not to reappoint a term appointee, notice of non-reappointment will be given in writing in accordance with the following standards:

     (1) Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service at Washington and Lee, if the appointment expires at the end of that year, or, if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination.

     (2) Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service at Washington and Lee, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if the appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.

     (3) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service at Washington and Lee.

     The services of a term appointee may be terminated by the University at any time for cause, but if the above notice provisions are not complied with, such termination will occur only after compliance with the procedures applicable to tenure appointees.

     a. A tenure appointment may be initiated with the first appointment to the Faculty of Washington and Lee or it may follow a term appointment, as defined above. Upon receiving a tenure appointment, a Faculty member shall have tenure, which is defined as meaning that employment shall not be terminated or academic rank reduced except for adequate cause or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies.

     b. Appointments to administrative positions are without tenure. A member of the Faculty who also holds an administrative position may be removed from the administrative position, but not from his or her Faculty position, without reference to the principles of academic tenure.

     c. It is recognized by the Board of Trustees, the University administration, and the Faculty that the purpose of academic tenure is to engender (1) the freedom of teaching and research and extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make Faculty membership at Washington and Lee attractive to men and women of ability.

     A Faculty member holding a tenure appointment will not be removed without the approval of the Board of Trustees. Removal will not take place without a hearing pertaining to the cause of the removal, unless the Faculty member freely waives a hearing. Such hearing will be consistent with accepted legal and academic traditions, and will be in accordance with the Dismissal Procedures in this Handbook.

     In any such instance, the guiding responsibility of all concerned is to retain and respect the academic integrity of the University.

     A special appointment to the Faculty is an appointment that continues only for a specified period of time or until the accomplishment of a specified objective and that the appointee clearly understands will terminate automatically without further notice, as provided by the terms of the appointment. A special appointment will not be used as a substitute for a term appointment, defined above. If a special appointment is followed by a term appointment, the term appointment will be regarded as having commenced at the time the special appointment commenced. Ordinarily, special appointments will be made only for the purpose of temporarily replacing regular Faculty members who are on leave of absence.

     a. A member of the Faculty at Washington and Lee is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his or her other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon a written understanding with the relevant Washington and Lee administrative offices.

     b. Members of the Washington and Lee Faculty are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of the institution. When speaking or writing as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As persons of learning and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge the profession and the institution by their utterances. Hence at all times they should be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they do not speak for the institution.

     1. Reconsideration and Appeal of Tenure, Reappointment, and Promotion Decisions. Notice of non-reappointment at the end of a term appointment is not to be confused with termination for cause (see "Dismissal Procedures" in section H, below). (The phrase "non-reappointment" when used herein includes both failure to reappoint and failure to grant tenure.) In the case of termination for cause the University can rightly be required to justify its decision. In the case of non-reappointment no such burden of proof exists and the University is to be "accorded the widest latitude consistent with academic freedom, equal opportunity, and the standards of fairness" in discharging its responsibility "to recruit and retain the best qualified faculty within its goals and means" (see American Association of University Professors [AAUP], Policy Documents and Reports, 1990). The citation of various AAUP guidelines throughout this section should not be interpreted as Washington and Lee’s intent to incorporate or adopt the provisions of the AAUP as its own but merely to use the AAUP’s language in clarification and illustration of the University’s own procedures.

     The considerations relevant to reappointment and promotion decisions are those qualities stated in the Faculty Handbook or in the Tenure and Promotion Procedures for the law school (Appendix B). The University expects that Faculty reappointment and promotion decisions be reached equitably and judiciously. Where the Faculty member believes that improper consideration contributed to the decision not to reappoint or not to promote, or that the decision was based on inadequate consideration, the University has established a policy of special review set forth further below.

     "Improper consideration" refers to considerations which violate either (i) academic freedom or (ii) University employment policies (see "Equal Employment Opportunity/ Non-Discrimination Statement" in IX: University Policies, elsewhere in this document) stipulating that appointments, reappointments, and promotion be made without discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation age, disability, or veteran status. It is not improper consideration to take into account behavior which adversely affects the discharge of professional duties.

     In defining the expression "adequate consideration," the University takes guidance from the AAUP’s Policy Documents and Reports:

It is easier to state what the standard ‘adequate consideration’ does not mean than to specify in detail what it does. It does not mean that the review committee [herein described as Washington and Lee’s Faculty Review Committee; for a description of this committee, see section B.3., below] should substitute its own judgment for that of members of the department on the merits of whether the candidate should be reappointed or given tenure.... The term ‘adequate consideration’ refers essentially to procedural rather than substantive issues: Was the decision conscientiously arrived at? Was all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the candidate sought out and considered? Was there adequate deliberation by the department over the import of the evidence in the light of the relevant standards? Were irrelevant and improper standards excluded from consideration? Was the decision a bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment? These are the kinds of questions suggested by the standard ‘adequate consideration.’

     2. Request for Reconsideration. A decision not to reappoint or not to promote is normally communicated orally to the Faculty member by the department chair or the appropriate academic dean. That notification is in every case to be confirmed in writing by the appropriate academic dean within two weeks of the decision being made. Upon receipt of the written notification, the Faculty member may request of the appropriate academic dean an informal discussion of the reasons that contributed to the decision. The Faculty member may also, after this discussion, request a written statement of these reasons. However, before a written statement is issued, the appropriate dean shall advise the Faculty member of the possible pros and cons of being given such a statement. Once requested, the statement must be issued by the appropriate academic dean within two weeks to the Faculty member.

     Should the Faculty member believe that improper consideration contributed to the decision not to reappoint or not to promote, or that the decision was based on inadequate consideration, the Faculty member may ask the appropriate dean to have convened, for purposes of reconsideration, the same body that originally considered the matter. This body will assess the allegations of improper or inadequate consideration based on the University’s published criteria and the evidence in the reappointment or promotion file.

     The request for reconsideration must be made in writing to the appropriate academic dean no later than one month following the written notification of non-reappointment or non-promotion. That request will specify in detail the factors the Faculty member believes warrant such a reconsideration.

     The decision regarding whether to grant reconsideration must be communicated in writing to the Faculty member by the appropriate dean within two weeks of the receipt of the request. If a reconsideration is granted, it must be concluded and its results and the reasons therefore communicated in writing to the Faculty member by the appropriate dean within two months of the decision to reconsider. The members of the body that reconsiders must treat their deliberations, the materials consulted in the reconsideration, and all facts learned in the course of the deliberations as confidential.

     3. The Faculty Review Committee. The Faculty Review Committee (FRC) is advisory to the President and shall hear appeals for non-reappointment or failure to promote based on detailed and substantiated allegations of inadequate consideration or improper consideration. The FRC will be composed of six (6) members and three (3) alternates, all of whom shall be tenured members of the Faculty. Five (5) members and two (2) alternates shall be elected from and by the undergraduate faculty and one (1) member and one (1) alternate shall be elected from and by the law faculty. Members of the Advisory Committee are not eligible to serve on the FRC. Members and alternates shall serve staggered three-year terms with one-third of each to be elected each year. Each fall, after new members have been elected, the FRC shall meet to elect its Chair.

     When a petition for review of a decision not to reappoint or promote is received by the Chair of the FRC (as provided in section B.4., below), the Chair shall convene the members of the FRC to consider the allegations made in the petition and to recommend an appropriate disposition thereof. No member of the FRC shall consider a petition dealing with a decision in which that member took part. If, for any reason, fewer than six members of the FRC shall be qualified to consider a petition, an alternate or alternates who are so qualified shall be chosen at random to assure a committee of six (6) members, if possible.

     The sole responsibility of the FRC is to investigate the process by which the original judgment was reached for the purpose of determining whether it was the result of improper or inadequate consideration. In pursuing its investigation, the FRC will not substitute its own judgment on the substantive merits of the case for the judgment of those who made the original decision. The members of the FRC must treat their deliberations, the materials consulted in the case, and all facts learned in the course of the case as confidential. The Chair of the FRC will notify the President in a timely manner of the initiation and disposition of all cases within its purview.

     4. Appeal Procedures. If reconsideration is not granted by the appropriate academic dean, or if reconsideration results in a determination that the decision was not the result of improper or inadequate consideration, the Faculty member may, within one month of being so informed by the appropriate dean, petition in writing to the Chair of the FRC to initiate a review of the non-reappointment or non-promotion decision. The petition must specify with factual detail the respect(s) in which the petitioner believes consideration to have been inadequate or improper.

     The FRC will initiate a formal review if and only if it concludes that the petitioner has established a prima facie case as to the truth of the allegations of inadequate consideration or improper consideration. In every case, the FRC will refer only to the petition to determine whether a prima facie case has been made. A prima facie case requires two parts: (a) allegations which, if true, would warrant or require remedial action or relief; and (b) credible support for the allegations.

     Should the FRC conclude that the Faculty member’s petition has not established a prima facie case for the truth of the allegations, it will report its findings in writing to the President, to the appropriate dean, to the department head, and to the petitioner. If a formal review is conducted, the Chair will rule upon procedural matters. The FRC’s findings must be reached by a majority vote. The procedures to be followed for a formal review are available at the Office of the President, the University Provost, the Dean of the College, the Dean of the Law School, and the Dean of the Commerce School.

     Should the FRC conclude that the decision in the case was not the result of improper or inadequate consideration, it will report its findings in writing to the President, to the University Provost, to the appropriate academic dean, to the department head, and to the petitioner no later than two months after the receipt of the petition.

     Should the FRC conclude that more likely than not the decision in the case was the result of improper or inadequate consideration, it will indicate the respects in which it believes the consideration to have been inadequate or improper and make the appropriate recommendations in writing to the President, to the University Provost, to the appropriate academic dean, to the department head, and to the petitioner no later than two months after the receipt of the petition. If the petition alleges improper conduct by the President, the report shall go directly to the Board of Trustees; otherwise, the decision of the President shall be final.

     All of the deadlines expressed above for reconsideration and appeal are set for the academic year. Depending upon the availability and willingness of FRC members to serve during the months of June, July, and August, the Chair of the FRC will determine whether the committee can be convened during the summer.

     The procedures outlined above exhaust the provisions for appeal within the governing structure of the University. Upon the completion of these procedures, no further appeal may be initiated within the University.

     The following qualities are thought to merit salary increases, reappointments, and promotions for Faculty members in the three divisions of the University. All of these qualities are valuable because they can contribute to the learning and teaching that the University hopes to foster. However, the list does not constitute a formula. Ideally, each member of the Faculty should be a complete scholar-teacher, but diversity of talents is also an asset to the University, and, furthermore, it is not possible for any of us to be equally strong in all of the relevant considerations. Consequently, those who use this list in making judgments must take care to interpret it so as to ensure that Washington and Lee remains a distinguished teaching institution.

     1. Teaching effectiveness. Judgment of a Faculty member’s teaching effectiveness shall include these considerations:

     a. Maintains a thorough knowledge and appropriate currency in the subject(s) taught;

     b. Plans and presents material intelligently and forcefully;

     c. Judges student performance appropriately;

     d. Reviews course materials and presentations; shows a willingness to undertake new techniques and to abandon unsuccessful experiments;

     e. Is enthusiastic about teaching and stimulates students in and beyond courses;

     f. Is available to students and willing to discuss course and other intellectual matters with them.

     2. Intellectual activity and achievement. Judgment of a Faculty member’s intellectual activity and achievement will include these considerations:

     a. Has attained the Ph.D. or equivalent terminal degree;

     b. Has published reviews, articles, monographs, and books or the equivalent (e.g., artistic creation, interpretation, and presentation), the quality of which is meritorious;

     c. Has conducted scholarly activities leading to greater depth and breadth in command of the academic field;

     d. Has developed general interests that contribute to the intellectual and cultural life of the community;

     e. Has presented papers of quality to professional associations or their equivalents;

     f. Stimulates the work of colleagues both inside and outside the University;

     g. Has contributed to the University through study and teaching during summers and leaves;

     h. Has engaged in consulting work that contributes to intellectual growth.

     3. Academic Citizenship. Judgment of a Faculty member’s qualities of academic citizenship will include these considerations:

     a. Enhances the collegiality of the institution by selfless cooperation with other Faculty members;

     b. Shares advising, committee work and, when appropriate, administrative responsibility;

     c. Affords service to the community through the use of professional expertise;

     d. Holds offices in state, regional, or national professional associations;

     e. Works with student organizations;

     f. Participates in civic activities.

D. Faculty Evaluation Procedures (revised 2000)

     See separate evaluation guidelines pertaining to Athletics faculty (Appendix A), and to Law faculty (Appendix B).

     1. Introduction. The purposes of faculty evaluation are to promote faculty development--to help members of the faculty improve their teaching effectiveness, to encourage faculty members to pursue their intellectual activity and achievement in their fields, and to promote academic citizenship--and to provide an equitable basis for decisions regarding re-appointment, promotion, tenure, and salary increases. The evaluation process should be administered in ways that enhance the spirit of trust, community, and common purpose that enrich this University.

     The primary responsibility for the professional evaluation of a faculty member resides with the department[s] in which the faculty member is appointed. Tenure and promotion processes will begin in the candidate's department[s] and will go to the President via the department's academic dean and the Advisory Committee. In cases where a faculty member is not appointed in a specific department, the appropriate dean[s] will form an evaluation committee as necessary. Responsibility for insuring that uniform standards are applied to all members of the faculty resides with the President's Advisory Committee. For the President's and the Board of Trustees' responsibilities in the processes, see the University By-Laws, chapter II.

     The following guidelines are recommended for use throughout the University; however, departments or schools may wish to adapt these procedures to their particular circumstances by proposing modifications. (See separate evaluation guidelines pertaining to Athletics faculty, and to Law faculty.) Such local adaptations are permissible, but all modifications must be submitted to the Advisory Committee for approval.

      All parties should keep confidential both the oral and written evaluation in these processes.

     2. Initial Employment. The most important step that a department takes is the initial decision to employ a faculty member on a tenure track. A department should make a recommendation to hire an applicant only after a national search and careful analysis of the applicant's credentials and interviews. If possible, the applicant will make a presentation to students and faculty.

     3. Evaluation During the Probationary Period. The letter of appointment will specify whether a faculty member's appointment is to be a tenure track position; anyone who is appointed to a tenure track position is a candidate for tenure.

     The first objective of evaluation during the probationary period is to provide the candidate with information regarding progress toward tenure. The second objective is to provide the tenured members of the department with information about the candidate's progress. For candidates in tenure track positions, evaluation will follow the criteria outlined in this document.

     Each year the department head will meet with the candidate to review the candidate's annual "Faculty Activities Report" and other materials deemed relevant by the candidate or the department head in order to assess progress toward tenure, address specific problems, and make specific suggestions for development. The department head will summarize the results of that consultation in a letter to the candidate, copies of which should be sent to the appropriate dean and to tenured members of the department. The candidate may provide a written response to this letter, which should be sent to these parties.

     During the first term appointment, emphasis during evaluation will be placed on teaching effectiveness and intellectual activity.

     At the time of the first term consideration, the department head will consult with all tenured department members regarding the candidate's progress as manifested in a file containing the letter(s) from the first annual review and other materials deemed relevant by the candidate or the department head. The department head will summarize the consultation in a letter to the appropriate dean with copies to the candidate and tenured members of the department. The candidate may provide a written response to this letter, which should be sent to these parties. A copy of that letter and any response becomes a part of the candidate's file.

     In the case of Physical Education/Athletics, department members who are hired with faculty status in non-tenure track positions are evaluated annually by the department head under guidelines developed by the head and approved by the Dean of the College; they may be brought forward for promotion, in most cases in the sixth year, under guidelines for promotion developed by the head and approved by the Dean of the College.

     At the time of the second term consideration, the candidate and the department head will assemble a file containing a current resume, all of the candidate's annual faculty activities reports, end-of-year evaluation letters and the candidate's responses (if any), and representative materials reflecting the current state of the candidate's teaching, intellectual activity and academic citizenship. The department head and the candidate, acting in cooperation, may include any other relevant material. The tenured members of the department will read the file, after which the department head will consult individually or collectively with them. The department head will summarize the results of that consultation in a letter to the appropriate dean with copies to the candidate and tenured members of the department. The candidate may provide a written response to this letter, which should be sent to these parties. A copy of that letter and any response will be placed in the candidate's file.

     4. Tenure Procedures. The process of making a tenure decision will normally be initiated in accordance with published time tables. Ordinarily tenure is accompanied by a promotion in rank.

     a. Assembling the File.
     It is the responsibility of the department head and the candidate, acting in cooperation, to prepare the file; both the candidate and the department head may include any pertinent material in the file. (In cases where someone other than the department head chairs the committee, read "chair of the tenure committee" here and below.) The file will only contain evidence relevant to the considerations specified in "The Faculty Handbook."

The file will contain:

- A current resume of the candidate;
- Copies of the annual reports of faculty activities;
- End-of-year letters of evaluation and responses (if any);
- Evidence of teaching effectiveness, including:

• The candidate's personal statement on goals and methods of teaching
• A summary of student evaluations for the years the faculty member has taught at W&L, with the evaluations themselves available
• Confidential letters of evaluation from alumni and former students
• Confidential letters of evaluation from current students
• Peer evaluations
• Representative course syllabi, bibliographies, examinations, and writing assignments
• Any published articles or papers on pedagogy (and any submitted for publication)

- Evidence of intellectual activity and achievements, including:

• The candidate's personal statement on the goals and development of intellectual activity
• Copies of any professional publications and/or evidence of artistic work (and any submitted for publication)
• Any articles presented at professional meetings
• Any internal and external grant proposals (funded and unfunded)
• Any professional association and society memberships;
• Any professional consultantships

- Evidence of academic citizenship consistent with the candidate's rank
- Confidential letters from each member of the tenure committee about the performance of the candidate as a teacher, a scholar, and an academic citizen.

     Here and subsequently in this document, confidential means accessible only to those involved in the evaluation process, excluding the candidate.

     A librarian's tenure file may not contain all the material described above, if he or she does not teach. For librarians, the criterion of teaching effectiveness is understood to mean effectiveness in all areas of the job description, including teaching when that applies.

The file may contain:

- Summary of course enrollments and average grades given as measured against departmental averages for the terms reported and course level.    - Evidence of candidate's performance in preparing students for subsequent courses.
- Non-confidential letters.
- Unpublished scholarship and research.   
- Confidential letters from scholars in the candidates field.
- Papers presented at departmental seminars.
- Information on work as a member of journal advisory boards, grant review committees, and masters thesis and doctoral dissertation committees.
- Information on editorial work.
- Invited participant on masters thesis and doctoral dissertation committees.
- Reports from class visitations.
- Confidential letters from colleagues from within the university.
- Evidence of innovative teaching practices--for example, electronic teaching materials, co-operative learning.
- Other evidence of scholarly reputation among peers--for example, invitations to present papers at scholarly meetings, citations of published work by others.

     This list is not meant to be exhaustive. The department head and the candidate are encouraged to include any material that they judge to be relevant.

     The candidate is entitled to an inventory of the file's contents prior to its submission to the committee.

     b. The Tenure Committee.
     The tenure committee, chaired by the head of the department, will consist of all of the tenured members of the department. If a department has fewer than five tenured members, then the tenure committee will be augmented by tenured faculty drawn from outside of the department (or the University) so that the tenure committee will have at least five members, a majority of whom are from the candidate's discipline. The candidate and the department head will agree upon a list of twice the required additional faculty who will be competent to augment the tenure committee and the dean will select the requisite number from the list. If a consensus cannot be reached, the dean may proceed in consultation with the candidate and the department head to select qualified non-departmental members of the committee. Each member of the tenure committee should review the file twice, once before the letters from the other members are included (see section 1), once after. Then the committee will meet to discuss the candidate's qualifications for tenure and will vote. While the vote may be anonymous, the tally shall be recorded and made part of the file. After the vote, the department head will prepare a report stating the recommendation of the tenure committee and explaining the basis for its recommendation. The department head will provide the candidate with a copy of the report, and the candidate will have the right to include in the file a response to the report. The candidate may include in this response whatever materials he or she deems pertinent. The tenure committee will review this response for such reconsideration as it deems appropriate, before the report and the file are forwarded to the appropriate dean, who conveys it to the chair of the Advisory Committee.

     c. The Advisory Committee.
     For the composition of the Advisory Committee as it considers cases of tenure and promotion, see IV: Standing Committees, elsewhere in this document.

     The chair of the Advisory Committee will inspect the file and the report to see if they are complete, and may request that the head of the department provide appropriate clarifying or supplemental information.

     Whenever a member of a candidate's tenure committee is sitting on the Advisory Committee, he or she should not be present for the final discussion and vote on the candidate.

     If the Advisory Committee judges that a departmental tenure committee has failed to follow the procedures described above or has employed standards which are either improper, irrelevant, or in violation of academic freedom, the chair of the Advisory Committee will refer the case back to the departmental tenure committee with instructions to remedy the procedural flaw, meet again and vote again on the merits of the case. The department head will, in writing, describe to the Advisory Committee the steps taken to remedy the flaw and explain the basis for the new vote on the merits of the case. The department head will provide the candidate with a copy of this report. If the Advisory Committee finds that the departmental tenure committee has failed to remedy the flaw, the Advisory Committee will so inform the President.

      In all cases the Advisory Committee will offer the President its advice on whether the candidate should be granted tenure, based upon the criteria presented in this document.

     After the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, its chair will add a letter of recommendation from the appropriate dean to the candidate's file and then send the file to the President.

     Whenever the Advisory Committee disagrees with the departmental recommendation regarding the merits of the case, the chair of the Advisory Committee will explain to the head of the department and to the candidate the basis of the difference. Furthermore, in such cases the President normally will arrange for an informal conference with the candidate before a final decision is reached.

     d. The President and the Board of Trustees.
     For the role of the President and the Trustees in the tenure process, see the University By-Laws (Chapter II, Section 3, paragraph 1; in I: The Charter of the University, elsewhere in this document).

     After the President reaches a decision, s/he should inform the members of the Advisory Committee if his/her decision is contrary to the advice of the majority of its members.

E. Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

     The development of tenured faculty members entails:

• At least maintaining the high quality of teaching required for tenure;
• Growing intellectual activity and achievement in the field;
• Increasing academic citizenship.

     Near the end of the first post-tenure year, each faculty member will devise a four-year plan of development; four years later and, thereafter, near the end of every fifth academic year (for most faculty, in rough alignment with the leave cycle), he or she will prepare a five-year plan of development.^* (In special circumstances, the dean may grant an extension of a year or so.) The plan should have as a preamble and generating point a personal narrative which traces professional growth in teaching, intellectual activity and achievement, and academic citizenship during the previous five years--or seven years in the case of the newly tenured person devising the first plan during the first post-tenure year. It should propose concrete ways of meeting the expectations for development listed above, focusing on the areas listed in sections C and D, above. Just after the plan is devised, it should be examined and commented on by the department head; its final form should be acceptable to both the head and the faculty member. This plan will be forwarded to the appropriate academic dean, who may exercise whatever oversight he or she deems appropriate. The department head will consult with the dean on how best to prepare the head's own plan; ordinarily the head will also consult with someone in his or her discipline in the course of devising it.

     Every year the department head will discuss with each tenured person how he or she is developing professionally, in light of the plan and new opportunities. The conference will be based on the annual "Faculty Activities Report," to which the plan will be appended. It will occur a few weeks after submission of the FAR. While the conversation will take up the specific activities of the past year, it will also evaluate, using the plan, the faculty member's overall development in teaching, intellectual activity, and academic citizenship.

     At the end of five years (four years, in the case of the first plan), a review of what has been achieved under the plan will be carried out by, successively, the faculty member, the department head, and the appropriate academic dean. First, the faculty member will write a review of his or her work during the five years, making specific reference to the plan and activities. This review will also serve as the personal narrative which prefaces the new plan, which will be constructed at the same time as the review of the old plan. Then the department head will study and critically evaluate the review, writing a letter of evaluation to the faculty member. At this point the department head will also examine and comment on the newly proposed plan, working with the faculty member until it is acceptable to both. Finally, the dean will receive a copy of the review and the new plan, plus the department head's letter, and will exercise whatever oversight he or she deems appropriate.

     While tenured members of the Physical Education/Athletics Department fall under these guidelines, non-tenured members with faculty status are evaluated annually by the department head under guidelines developed by the head and approved by the Dean of the College

F. Promotion to Professor

     It is expected that all faculty members who are promoted to associate professor will continue to develop (in the ways stated above). The evaluation of faculty for purposes of this promotion will be carried out according to the guidelines for evaluation for tenure decisions with the following adjustments:

     1. Except in unusual circumstances, the process will be initiated at any point after the fifth year as associate professor.

     2. It may be initiated by the head of the faculty member's department or by a request to the department head from the faculty member, the faculty member's dean, the Advisory Committee, or the President. In all cases where the faculty member does not initiate the process, he or she must be consulted and must consent before the process goes forward.

     3. The department head and the candidate will assemble a file of materials documenting levels of achievement in teaching, intellectual activity, and service appropriate to the rank. This file will contain:

     a.  A current curriculum vitae;

     b. The annual Faculty Activities Report for the years as associate professor;

     c. Student evaluation of teaching during those years

     d. Any published or accepted work in the field (including evidence of artistic work) together with any papers or talks in the field during those years;

     e.  Confidential letters from scholars in the candidate's field;

     f. The four-year development plan and any subsequent five-year plans, together with materials from the review(s) described in section D, above.

     A librarian's promotion file may not contain student evaluation of teaching if he or she does not teach.

     For additional types of appropriate material, which may be included in the file, see section D, above.

     4. The committee to review the file will consist of those members of the department who hold the rank of professor. If a department has fewer than three members from that rank, then the committee will be augmented by the means used to augment tenure committees until it reaches the minimum number of three. If the department head is not a member of the committee, the appropriate dean will name the committee's chair. In composing the committee, particular attention should be paid to securing at least one member from the discipline who does scholarly work in the same field as the candidate.

     Beyond the promotion to full professor, it is expected that faculty members will continue to utilize five-year development plans.

     Notwithstanding the University’s dismissal procedures, the University and its administrators reserve the right and the discretion to handle individual situations of Faculty misconduct or failure to abide by University policies and procedures, regardless of where or when they occur, on a case-by-case basis, and to take whatever disciplinary action the University, in its discretion, deems to be appropriate and in the best interest of the University community, short of dismissal. Such non-dismissal disciplinary sanctions could range from an oral reprimand to a suspension without pay for a specified period of time, depending on the severity of the misconduct. In those circumstances, the University would expect to provide the Faculty member notice of the misconduct and an opportunity to respond, with the University to give all due consideration to the Faculty member’s response. However, the University reserves the right to dispense with such notice when, in the discretion of the University, the safety, health, or welfare of University employees or students warrant. The University expects to handle these circumstances consistent with its commitment to mutual respect and civility for each member of the community.

     1. Adequate cause for a dismissal will be related, directly and substantially, to the fitness of the Faculty member in his or her professional capacity as a teacher or researcher. Dismissal will not be used to restrain Faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.

     2. 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: (l) discussions between the Faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a mutual settlement; (2) informal inquiry by the Advisory Committee which may, failing to effect an adjustment, determine whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the President; (3) a statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity by the President or the President’s delegate.

     3. A dismissal, as defined in Regulation 1 above, will be preceded by the aforementioned statement of charges, and the individual concerned will have the right to be heard initially by an ad hoc committee of the Faculty elected to hear the particular case by the Faculty at a Faculty meeting. This ad hoc committee of five Faculty members will be elected in the following way. A nomination ballot shall be taken. On the next ballot (each Faculty member voting for 5) the five persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be considered elected to the committee. Another ballot using the remaining nominees will be held. The top five on this ballot will serve as alternates for the committee. In case of a vacancy due to disqualification, illness, resignation, challenge without stated cause, or for other reasons, an alternate will become a member of the committee. The alternates will be added in high to low order of the votes they received. Members will remove themselves from the case, either at the request of a party or on their own initiative, if they deem themselves disqualified for bias or interest. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges without stated cause.

     a. Pending a final decision by the hearing committee, the Faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm to the Faculty member or others is threatened by continuance. Before suspending a Faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of the Faculty member’s status through the institution’s hearing procedures, the administration will consult with the Advisory Committee concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension that is intended to be final is a dismissal, and will be treated as such. Salary will continue during the period of the suspension.

     b. The hearing committee may, with the consent of the parties concerned, hold joint pre-hearing meetings with the parties in order to (i) simplify the issues, (ii) effect stipulations of facts, (iii) provide for the exchange of documentary or other information, and (iv) achieve such other appropriate pre-hearing objectives as will make the hearing fair, effective, and expeditious.

     c. The Faculty member will be served notice of hearing with specific charges in writing at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The Faculty member may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at any time before the hearing. If the Faculty member waives a hearing, but denies the charges or asserts that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the hearing tribunal will evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.

     d. The committee, in consultation with the President or designee and the Faculty member, will exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private.

     e. During the proceedings, the Faculty member and the President or designee will each be permitted to choose and have an academic adviser and legal counsel.

     f. At the request of either party or the hearing committee, a representative of a responsible educational association shall be permitted to attend the proceedings as an observer.

     g. A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken and a typewritten copy will be made available to the Faculty member without cost, at the Faculty member’s request.

     h. The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution, and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.

     i. The hearing committee will grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.

     j. The Faculty member will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. The administration will cooperate with the hearing committee in securing witnesses and making available documentary and other evidence.

     k. The Faculty member and the administration will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where the witnesses cannot or will not appear, but the committee determines that the interests of justice require admission of their statements, the committee will identify the witnesses, disclose their statements, and if possible provide for interrogatories.

     1. In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony shall include that of qualified Faculty members from this or other institutions of higher education.

     m. The hearing committee will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available.

     n. The findings of fact and the decision will be based solely on the hearing record.

     o. Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the Faculty member or administrative officers will be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the governing board of the institution. The President and the Faculty member will be notified of the decision in writing and will be given a copy of the record of the hearing.

     p. If the hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has not been established by the evidence in the record, it will so report to the President. If the President rejects the report, the President will state his or her reasons for doing so in writing, to the hearing committee and to the Faculty member, and provide an opportunity for response before transmitting the case to the governing board. If the hearing committee concludes that adequate cause for a dismissal has been established, but that an academic penalty less than dismissal would be more appropriate, it will so recommend, with supporting reasons.

     4. Action by the Governing Board. If dismissal or other penalty is recommended, the President will, on request of the Faculty member, transmit to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, with the Rector as acting Chair, the record of the case. The Executive Committee’s review will be based on the record of the committee hearing, and it will provide opportunity for argument, oral or written, or both, by the principals at the hearing or by their representatives. Either the decision of the hearing committee will be sustained, or the proceeding will be returned with specific objections. The committee will then reconsider, taking into account the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. The Executive Committee will make its decision only after study of the committee’s reconsideration. The Executive Committee’s action will be presented to the Board of Trustees, which will make the final decision on the basis of the hearing committee’s recommendation or reconsideration, as the case may be, and of the Executive Committee’s decision.

     At Washington and Lee retirement from teaching is not severance from the University but rather the assumption of a new relationship and status within the University community.

     Retired Faculty retain their University card, which is valuable for several purposes. It provides access to Leyburn and Law Library facilities, and is necessary for checking out books. It is used in purchasing meals at a discount at GHQ, and for purchases at the bookstore and snack bar. It identifies retirees for a generation of students staffing facilities who may not recognize them immediately.

     Retirees and their spouses are welcome at campus events, and at Lenfest Center productions, subject to advance reservations. Retirees retain their access to swimming pools and gymnasium facilities.

     1. Early Retirement. A member of the Faculty with ten or more years of service may retire as early as age 62, at which time reduced social security benefits may be elected. TIAA/CREF retirement income payments may also commence at that point.

     To insure continuity of health insurance until age 65, at which time Medicare and the University’s Medicare Supplement coverage begin, the retiree may continue participation in the group health insurance plan until age 65.

     Dependent children continue to be eligible for the Educational Grant benefit.

     2. Traditional or Normal Retirement. Age 65 has historically been the traditional or normal retirement age. It is the first age at which unreduced social security benefits are available for those born between 1938 and 1960. It is the first age that one becomes eligible for Medicare health benefits and for the University’s Medicare Supplement policy.

     It is also the point at which TIAA/CREF retirement annuity benefits are not actuarially reduced because of attained age.

     Dependent children continue to be eligible for the Educational Grant Benefit.

     a. Purpose. The PRP allows a Faculty member to retire at or before the age of 70 by means of a maximum four-year gradual transition from full-time teaching to full retirement while minimizing the financial losses incurred by participating in the program. The PRP will usually provide for the employment of a new Assistant Professor when a senior Faculty member enters the program, thus allowing for some flexibility in staff assignments while the senior Faculty member participates in the program.

     b. Eligibility. To be eligible to participate in the PRP a Faculty member at Washington and Lee University must:

• Have tenured faculty status in an academic department or the School of Law;
• Have served a minimum of ten full-time equivalent years at Washington and Lee with Faculty status as of July 1 prior to entering PRP;
• Be between the ages of 59½ and 68.

     c. Phased Retirement Period, Teaching Schedule, Salary, and Benefits. A Faculty member becomes eligible to enter the program in the academic years in which they reach the ages of 59½ to 68 and may participate in it for a maximum of four years and for a minimum of two years. Having entered the program, the Faculty member will be given a half-time teaching assignment for the period of the PRP. Upon completing the period of half-time employment, the Faculty member will retire from Washington and Lee University not later than the end of the academic year in which the age of 70 is reached.

     For the purpose of determining the PRP salary, the individual’s regular full-time salary in the academic year in which the program begins is called the base salary. The PRP salary to be paid to the individual in the first year will be 75% of the base salary and 50% of the base salary for the remaining year(s) in the program. The base salary will be adjusted each subsequent academic year in the same manner that the base salary of all regular full-time Faculty members is adjusted. A Faculty member participating in the program may choose to augment the Washington and Lee salary by beginning to draw on his or her TIAA/CREF retirement-income.

     In addition to the retirement salary, the University will continue during the PRP period to make premium contributions to the individual’s regular TIAA/CREF retirement contract. Premium contributions will be based on the Washington and Lee salary for each academic year. The University will also continue to pay its portion of social security contributions and its share of the premiums for health, life, and disability insurance coverage.

     d. Other Benefits. A Faculty member participating in PRP will remain eligible for the college tuition benefit, for travel support, and for both Glenn Grant and R.E. Lee Grant funding but not for sabbatical leave.

     e. Notification of Participation. An individual planning to enter PRP must notify in writing the department head and the appropriate dean not later than September 30 of the year prior to the academic year in which he or she plans to enter the program. Once an individual officially enters the Program (July 1 of the first year), the only means of withdrawing from it is through full retirement.

     f. Additional Information. Questions concerning eligibility and application procedures and requests for additional information should be directed to the appropriate dean. Questions concerning the retirement salary and benefits should be directed to the Director of Personnel Services.

     g. Definitions. Following are definitions or explanations of terms used above in the description of PRP

Faculty Status — tenured faculty who teach full time in an academic department or in the School of Law.

Academic Department — includes all academic departments and established interdisciplinary programs as described in the University Catalogue.

Base Salary — is defined as the Faculty member’s full-time salary which would have been earned the first year of participation in PRP.

Years of Service — will be counted on a full-time equivalent basis and need not be consecutive years of service.                   

Half-time Teaching Assignment — will be interpreted in the College and Williams School of Commerce as seven courses biennially with a 4-3 or 3-4 course assignment in alternate years or its equivalent; in the School of Law, it will be interpreted as six or seven semester hours per year.

     4. Deferred Retirement. A number of Faculty elect to continue teaching beyond the traditional retirement age and thereby postpone the start of their retirement income and Medicare benefits. They remain eligible for all University fringe benefits until their retirement.

Revised May 2003