VIII. Separation and Sanctions
The guidelines and expectations set forth in Section VIII and Section IX (Letters D and E) shall inform and govern procedures relative to separation of faculty and the grievance processes that result from those separations, except in catastrophically disruptive circumstances that by reasonable measure immediately threaten the College’s ability to operate. Examples of such catastrophically disruptive circumstances include (but are not limited to): pandemics, war, terrorist act that has a demonstrable effect on the College, and a generalized lack of availability of raw materials or energy, that directly threaten the College’s ability to operate in furtherance of its Mission. These circumstances shall not include typical financial distress nor the inability of the College to generate an annual budget surplus. Furthermore, should these catastrophically disruptive circumstances occur, the president of Keuka College must demonstrate to the Faculty Liaison Committee in writing, using verifiable data and specific details, why the guidelines and expectations set forth in Section VIII and Section IX (Letters D and E) shall not inform and govern procedures relative to separation of faculty and the grievance processes that result from those separations.
Absent the above-described and specific circumstances, and absent a written demonstration to the Faculty Liaison Committee by the President of Keuka College described above, the procedures
delineated in Sections VIII and IX of the Faculty Handbook will govern any faculty separations, as well as the grievance processes that result from those separations.
A. Termination of Probationary Appointment
The purpose of a probationary appointment is to provide time for the Faculty member to prove him/herself and to provide time for his/her colleagues to observe and evaluate the new Faculty member’s performance in the position before tenure is granted or a reappointment contract is offered. The very nature of a probationary appointment implies the possibility of non- reappointment.
1. If a probationary appointment is not going to be renewed, the Faculty member will be informed of that recommendation or decision in writing by the body or individual making the initial recommendation or decision.
2. Notice of non-reappointment must be given to the Faculty member in advance of the expiration of his/her appointment as follows:
a. Not later than March 1 of the first academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least three months in advance of its termination;
b. Not later than Feb. 15, the second academic year of service, if the appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year appointment terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination; or,
c. At least 12 months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more years of service at the institution.
3. The probationary Faculty member may request that he/she be advised of the reasons which contributed to that decision.
4. If the Faculty member so requests, the reasons given in explanation of the non- renewal will be confirmed in writing by the body or individual making the initial negative recommendation or decision.
5. Within two weeks of receiving the decision not to reappoint, or two weeks after receiving a written explanation of the reasons of non-renewal, if so requested, the Faculty member may request reconsideration by the recommending or deciding body.
6. If the Faculty member alleges that inadequate consideration significantly contributed to a decision not to renew the appointment, his/her allegation will be considered by the FLC in Consultation with the Office of Human Resources, which shall make recommendations to the Provost and President as outlined in Section A, V, C. (7).
If a Faculty member on probationary or other non-tenured appointment believes that inadequate consideration significantly contributed to a decision not to reappoint, the Faculty member may initiate an appeal to the Faculty Liaison Committee.
The AAUP provides the following definition: “The term ‘adequate consideration’ refers essentially to procedural rather than to 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 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.”
Petition for Review Alleging Inadequate Consideration: Insofar as the petition for review alleges inadequate consideration, the functions of the Faculty Liaison Committee, which reviews the Faculty member’s petition, should be the following:
a. To determine whether the decision was the result of adequate consideration, with the understanding that the Faculty Liaison Committee should not substitute its judgment on the merits for that of the Professional Standards Committee;
b. To request reconsideration by the Professional Standards Committee when the Faculty Liaison Committee believes that adequate consideration was not given to the Faculty member’s qualifications (in such instances, the Faculty Liaison Committee should indicate the respects in which it believes that consideration may have been inadequate); and
c. To provide copies of its report and recommendation to the Faculty member, the body or individual that made the decision, and the President or other appropriate administrative officer.
d. All materials used for review will be kept in the evaluation file until the evaluation process is complete, at which time they are moved to the Faculty member’s personnel file in the Academic Affairs Office.
e. In any case in which the person whose qualifications as a Faculty member are in question is a member of the Faculty Liaison Committee, they shall withdraw from the committee until the case is concluded.
7. If the Faculty member on probationary or other non-tenure appointment alleges that a decision not to reappoint was based significantly on considerations violative of (1) academic freedom, or (2) governing policies on making appointments without prejudice with respect to legally protected classes, the allegation will be given preliminary consideration by the FLC (in cases of academic freedom) and the Office of Human Resources, which will seek to settle the matter.
a. The allegation presented to the Office of Human Resources in consultation with the Faculty Liaison Committee for consideration shall be accompanied by a statement that the Faculty member agrees to the presentation of such
reasons and evidence that the decision-making bodies had compiled in support of its decision.
b. If the difficulty is not resolved at this stage, the matter will be heard in the manner set forth in AAUP Regulations 5 and 6 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure), except that the Faculty member making the complaint is responsible for stating the grounds upon which s/he bases his/her allegations, and the burden of proof shall rest upon the Faculty member. If the Faculty member succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, it is incumbent upon those who made the decision not to reappoint him/her to come forward with evidence in support of their decision.
8. In all cases where inadequate consideration is involved, or where issues of academic freedom or prejudice are alleged, or where notice of reasons, standards, and criteria relative to the probationary period are involved, the Faculty members are to be guided by the additional principles as set forth in the 1971 Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal and Non-Renewal of Faculty Appointments formulated by the AAUP and Adopted by the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the institution.
B. Termination of Other Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
1. Lecturers, Instructors, Clinical Faculty, and Special Appointment Faculty and other academic staff who establish a case to the satisfaction of the Faculty Liaison Committee that a decision not to reappoint, outside of the contract terms, was based significantly on consideration violative of academic freedom shall be entitled to a hearing as described in Section A, V. C. (7).
2. All the above Academic Faculty shall have access to the Faculty Liaison Committee as provided in AAUP Regulation 15 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
C. Termination of Appointment by the Faculty Member
1. A Faculty member may terminate his/her appointment effective at the end of an academic year, provided that he/she gives notice in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but not later than May 15, or 30 days after receiving notification of the terms of his/her appointment of the academic year, whichever date occurs later. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty member may ask the appropriate officials of the institution to waive this requirement, but he/she should conform to their decision.
2. In all cases where resignation of the Faculty member is contemplated, s/he is to consult and be guided by the additional principles set forth in the 1961 Statement of Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members formulated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the American Association of University Professors, and adopted by the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the Institution.
D. Termination of Appointment due to Financial Exigency and Staff Reduction
1. Termination of an appointment with continuous tenure, or other Faculty member before the end of the specified term, may occur under extraordinary circumstances because of a demonstrably bona fide financial exigency, i.e., an imminent financial crisis that threatens the survival of the institution as a whole and which cannot be alleviated by less drastic means.
2. If the administration issues notice to a particular Faculty member of an intention to terminate the appointment because of financial exigency, the Faculty member will have the right to a full hearing before the Faculty Liaison Committee. The hearing need not conform in all respects with a proceeding conducted pursuant to AAUP Regulation 5 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure), but the essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing will be observed. See below for issues involved in this hearing.
3. If the institution, because of financial exigency, terminates appointments, it will not at the same time make new appointments except in extraordinary circumstances where other academic programs will be adversely affected.
4. The appointment of a Faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a Faculty member without tenure, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would result.
5. Before termination of an appointment because of financial exigency, the institution, with Faculty participation, will make every effort to place the Faculty member concerned in another suitable position within the institution.
6. In any cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, the Faculty member concerned will be given notice or severance salary not less than as proscribed in AAUP Regulation 8 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
7. In all cases of termination of appointment because of financial exigency, the place of the Faculty member concerned will not be filled by a replacement within a period of three years, unless the released Faculty member has been offered reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline it.
8. In all cases involving financial exigency, the institution and the faculty member concerned will be guided by the Statement on Institutional Problems Resulting from Financial Exigency: Some Operating Guidelines; the 1972 Statement on The Role of Faculty in Budgetary and Salary Matters, formulated by the American Association of University Professors; and the 1971 Statement on Financial Exigency and Staff Reduction, formulated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and adopted by the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the institution.
E. Termination of Appointment Due to Discontinuance of Program or Department Not Mandated by Financial Exigency
1. When discontinuance of a program, department, or discipline is mandated by financial exigency of the institution, the standards of section D above will apply. When
discontinuance of an appointment with continuous tenure, or of a probationary or specified appointment before the end of the specified term, occurs as the result of a bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the following standards and procedures will apply.
2. The decision to discontinue formally a program or department of instruction will be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined primarily by the Faculty as a whole with appropriate recommendation from the Curriculum Committee. Educational considerations do not include cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment. They must reflect long-range judgments that the educational mission of the institution as a whole will be enhanced by the discontinuance.
3. Before the administration issues notice to a Faculty member of its intention to terminate an appointment because of formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the institution will make every effort to place the Faculty member concerned in another suitable position. If placement in another position would be facilitated by a reasonable period of training, financial and other support for such training will be offered. If no position is available within the institution, with or without training, the Faculty member’s appointment then may be terminated, but only with provision for severance salary equitably adjusted to the Faculty member’s length of past and potential service, but not less than as prescribed in AAUP Regulation 8 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
4. A Faculty member may appeal a proposed relocation or termination resulting from a discontinuance and has a right to a full hearing before the Faculty Liaison Committee.
5. In all cases involving termination of appointment because of discontinuance of programs or departments not mandated by financial exigency, the institution and the Faculty member concerned will be guided by same statements described in D-7 above: Termination due to Financial Exigency.
F. Termination for Medical Reasons
Termination of an appointment with tenure, or of a probationary or special appointment before the end of the period of appointment, for medical reasons, will be based upon clear and convincing medical evidence that the Faculty member cannot continue to fulfill the terms and conditions of the appointment.
1. The decision to terminate will be reached only after there has been appropriate consultation and after the Faculty member concerned, or someone representing the Faculty member, has been informed of the basis of the proposed action and has been afforded an opportunity to present the Faculty member’s position and to respond to the evidence.
2. If the Faculty member so requests, the evidence will be reviewed by the Faculty Liaison Committee before a final decision is made by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the President.
3. The Faculty member will be given severance salary not less than as prescribed in AAUP Regulation 8 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure).
G. Termination of Appointment Due to Retirement
H. Termination of Appointment by the Institution for Cause:
Termination of an appointment with continuous tenure, or other Faculty members, including those on special appointment are entitled to due process as outlined in provisions one (1) and two (2) below. All non-special appointment Faculty (tenured and tenure-track Faculty, librarians, lecturers, instructors, clinical Faculty) are also entitled to provisions three (3), four (4) and five (5).
1. Adequate cause for dismissal will be related directly and substantially to the fitness of the Faculty member in his/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 legal rights. (See AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom.)
2. Before the dismissal of a Faculty member with continuous tenure, or other Faculty member, including those with special appointment is actualized, this should be preceded by:
a. A discussion between the Faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a mutual settlement;
b. If the decision is made to proceed with the dismissal, a statement of charges, should be framed with reasonable particularity by the President or his/her delegate.
3. Pending a final recommendation by the Hearing Committee as described in Section A, V.C, (7), the Faculty member will be suspended, or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension, only if immediate harm to himself/herself or others is threatened by his/her continuance. Before suspending a Faculty member, pending an ultimate determination of his/her status through the institution’s hearing procedures, the administration will consult with the Professional Standards Committee concerning the propriety, the length, and the other conditions of the suspension. A suspension which is intended to be final is a dismissal, and will be treated as such.
4. Salary will continue during the period of suspension.
I. Sanctions Other Than Dismissal
1. Major Sanction: If the administration believes that the conduct of a Faculty member, although not constituting adequate cause for dismissal, is sufficiently grave to justify
imposition of a severe sanction, such as suspension from service for a stated period, the administration may institute a proceeding to impose such a severe sanction; the procedures outlined in AAUP Regulation 5 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure) shall govern such a proceeding. A Faculty member who believes that a major sanction has been unjustly imposed may, pursuant to AAUP Regulation 15 (Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure), petition the Faculty Liaison Committee in consultation with Human Resources, for such action as may be appropriate.
2. Minor Sanction: If the administration believes that the conduct of a Faculty member justifies imposition of a minor sanction, such as a reprimand, it shall notify the Faculty member regarding the basis of the proposed sanction and provide him/her with the opportunity to persuade the administration that the proposed sanction should not be imposed.
J. Procedures Relating to Termination of Employment
1. Review: The Board of Trustees will be available for ultimate review in case of termination of appointment.
2. Salary: If the appointment is terminated, the Faculty member will receive salary or notice in accordance with the following schedule:
a. At least three months, if final decision is reached by March 1 (or three months prior to the expiration) of the first year of probationary service.
b. At least six months, if the decision is reached by Dec. 15 of the second year (or after nine months but prior to 18 months) of probationary service; at least one year, if the decision is reached after 18 months of probationary service or if the Faculty member has tenure.
The provision for terminal notice or salary need not apply in the event that there has been a finding that the conduct that justified dismissal involved moral turpitude. On the recommendation of the Faculty Hearing Committee or the President, the Board of Trustees may determine what, if any, payment will be made beyond the effective date of dismissal.