University Handbook Section C:
Faculty Identity, Employment, Tenure

(3/10/15, 06/05/15, 12/3/15, 5/10/16, 2/22/17, 9/28/17, 11/15/17, 3/13/18, 4/10/18, 6/12/18, 3/5/19, 10/8/19, 6/14/22, 11/8/22, 11/14/23, 2/13/24, 6/11/24 revisions)

Section C refers to unclassified professionals and faculty. While some questions of identity and employment are identical for the two groups, differentiation exists in some instances; and tenure policies apply exclusively to faculty.

Faculty Responsibilities

C1 Faculty members, as distinguished from other personnel employed by the university, are those members of the unclassified service who have the professional expertise and the responsibility for the major university endeavors of teaching, research and other creative activities, extension, directed service, and non-directed service.

Institutional excellence is enhanced by both faculty specialization and versatility in the kind of work done within and across departments and units. Faculty members will have individual responsibility profiles. However, specialization of labor carried to extremes could seriously limit the extent to which faculty would be able to meet changing needs in their departments or to meet temporary needs. Thus, a major purpose of the probationary period is to assess a candidate's versatility across and within areas of work.

Kansas State University’s land grant mission is to foster excellent teaching, research, and service that develop a highly skilled and educated citizenry necessary to advancing the well-being of Kansas, the nation, and the international community. The university embraces diversity, encourages engagement, and is committed to the discovery of knowledge, the education of undergraduate and graduate students, and improvement in the quality of life and standard of living of those we serve. As such, we recognize that faculty responsibility includes activities along a continuum of mission driven scholarly activity.

When included as part of a faculty member's appointment, each of the responsibility areas below is considered in decisions for reappointment, tenure, and promotion as well as in annual merit evaluations:

C2 Teaching. Efforts to assist undergraduate and graduate students, or external stakeholders in gaining knowledge, understanding, or proficiency; for example, planning and teaching courses, advising undergraduates, or supervising graduate students.

C3 Research and other creative activities. Efforts to make original intellectual or artistic contributions through scholarship; for example, original research, creative artistry, interdisciplinary scholarly work, publicly-engaged research, guiding graduate students' research, or the use of specialized knowledge to address significant social or professional problems. For more information see Section G of the University Handbook.

C4 Extension. Efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service that provide practical, scientifically based, and useful information to Kansas residents through informal, out-of-school, non-credit education programs.

C5 Directed service. All other work that furthers the mission of and is directly related to the goals and objectives of a unit and the university, that requires academic credentials or special skills, and that is a part of a faculty member's explicit assignment. Typical positions that involve such work are librarians and clinicians-diagnosticians.

C6 Non-directed service. There are three categories: institution-, profession-, and public-based service.

Institution-based service. Work that is essential to the operation of the university; for example, contributing to the formulation of academic policy and programs, serving on the faculty senate, the graduate council, and committees of the department, college or university, or acting as adviser to student organizations.

Profession-based service. Work that is directly related to the function of the unit and that provides leadership and service to the faculty member’s profession or discipline; for example, holding office in a professional association or service on an editorial board or professional journal.

Public-based professional service. Efforts that are not directed service but that are the application of knowledge and expertise intended for the benefit of a non-academic audience; for example, serving as an expert witness, developing programs and providing training, or providing consultation.

C7 Administrative duties. Faculty members also may have administrative duties, such as serving as department heads/chairs, assistant deans, and associate deans. Administrative officers may hold academic rank in a department.

Unclassified Professional Responsibilities

C8 Unclassified professionals are professional staff who contribute significant intellectual labor - technical, administrative, supervisory, and managerial - to the mission of the university. Unclassified professionals are expected to actively engage with the mission of the university in the fulfillment of their responsibilities. However, these responsibilities vary widely. Thus, responsibilities are primarily defined by their position descriptions and determined at the level of those individual units to which unclassified professionals report.

Unclassified professionals, like faculty, also have the opportunity to perform non-directed service as defined in C6.

All unclassified professional positions are non-tenure track; however, tenured and tenured-track faculty may be appointed to unclassified professional positions. Unclassified professionals may be regular, term or temporary appointments.

Faculty Appointments

C10 Faculty appointments. The following ranks may be either regular, term, or adjunct appointments.

Professor, associate professor, assistant professor (probationary or tenured)

Senior instructor, advanced instructor, instructor (see Section C12.0)

Research professor, research associate professor, research assistant professor (see Section C12.1)

Clinical professor, clinical associate professor, clinical assistant professor (see Section C12.2)

Senior professor of practice, professor of practice (see Section C12.3)

Teaching professor, teaching associate professor, teaching assistant professor (see Section C12.4)

Extension professor, extension associate professor, extension assistant professor (see Section C12.5)

In matters affecting the graduate faculty, only members holding membership in graduate faculty may vote on matters affecting this group. (FSM 2-14-90)

C11 Term appointments.

Those appointed on a term appointment may be engaged in teaching, research and other creative endeavors, extension, or library services. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. Normally, a term appointment is used only when the need or the funding for the position is finite. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. Years of service on a term appointment are not credited toward tenure. The Standards for Notice of Non-Reappointment applicable to regular appointments do not apply. (POD 5-89; FSM 5-9-89)

Term appointments also include graduate assistant, graduate teaching assistant, and graduate research assistant (FSM 2-14-90).

C12.0 Appointments at the rank of instructor, advanced instructor, and senior instructor. The primary responsibility for persons on these appointments will be instruction, although the entire set of expectations must be clearly defined in the offer letter. Individuals in these positions are not required to hold the terminal degree appropriate to the discipline. Individuals on these appointments are not eligible for tenure and are not eligible to vote on matters of tenure or promotion for tenure-track faculty. Service in these positions is not credited toward tenure. Faculty at these ranks will be appointed on one of the following contracts:

1. Instructor, advanced instructor and senior instructor---term appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. The Standards for Notice of Non-reappointment do not apply.
2. Instructor, advanced instructor, and senior instructor---regular appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. An instructor at any rank on a regular appointment is a member of the general faculty, and is afforded all perquisites accorded to the general faculty. Regular appointees are entitled to Notice of Non-Reappointment, as appropriate (see C160, et seq., University Handbook).

Units that wish to use these faculty appointments must first include in their departmental documents the specific criteria that apply to these positions and the processes to be used for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluations and promotion. Persons appointed to these ranks may expect to be promoted on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relationship to their association with the university's mission and within their discipline. Typically, consideration for promotion from instructor to advanced instructor can occur after a five-year period at the rank of instructor. Consideration for promotion to senior instructor may occur in accordance with criteria established by the unit. Each higher rank demands a higher level of accomplishment consistent with the expectations based on specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the appropriate dean. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding their progress toward or readiness for promotion review.

Recommendations for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluation, and promotion shall be made according to the guidelines and procedures described in the University Handbook (see Section C) and the departmental documents. Instructor positions will be awarded as one-year, regular or term contracts. Advanced instructor and senior instructor positions may be awarded as one-year regular appointments, or as one-, two, or three-year term appointments.

C12.2 Appointments at the rank of clinical assistant professor, clinical associate professor, and clinical professor. The primary responsibility for persons on these appointments will be teaching and clinical service. A component of the clinical appointment may include opportunity for scholarly achievement. Persons appointed to these positions should have credentials appropriate to the discipline. Clinical faculty are not eligible for tenure, and service in these positions is not credited toward tenure. Faculty at these ranks will be appointed on one of the following contracts:

1. Clinical assistant professor, clinical associate professor, and clinical professor--term appointment. This appointment may be full time or part time clinical track appointment. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. The Standards for Notice of Non-reappointment do not apply.
2. Clinical assistant professor, clinical associate professor, and clinical professor--regular appointment. This may be a full-time or part-time track position. As such a clinical professor at any rank on a regular appointment is a member of the general faculty and is afforded all perquisites accorded to the general faculty. Regular appointees are entitled to Notice of Non-Reappointment (see C160, et seq., University Handbook).

Units that wish to use clinical faculty appointments must first include in their departmental documents the specific criteria that apply to these positions and the processes to be used for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluations and promotion. Under certain circumstances, to be set forth in the units' respective departmental documents, persons appointed to clinical track or tenure track appointments may make a one-time transfer from their appointment track to the other. Approval of the departmental document revisions will follow the regular process.

Persons appointed to these ranks may expect to be promoted on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relationship to their association with the university's mission and within their discipline. Each higher rank demands a higher level of accomplishment consistent with the expectations based on specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the appropriate dean. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding their progress toward or readiness for promotion review.

Recommendations for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluation, and promotion shall be made according to the guidelines and procedures described in the University Handbook (see Section C). Persons appointed to clinical assistant professor positions will receive annually renewable one-year contracts. Those persons appointed to clinical associate professor positions will receive renewable three-year contracts. Those persons appointed to clinical full professor positions will receive renewable five-year contracts. Notice of Non-reappointment for these appointments must be given 12 months before the end of the contract. (FS 6-14-05 /BOR 1-19-06/BOR 1-19-12)

C12.3 Appointments at the rank of professor of practice and senior professor of practice. The primary responsibility for persons on these appointments will be teaching, research, or outreach and service or some combination of these duties. The entire set of expectations must be clearly defined in the offer letter. Persons appointed to these positions should have substantial non-academic experience and credentials appropriate to the discipline. Individuals on these appointments are not eligible for tenure and are not eligible to vote on matters of tenure or promotion for tenure-track faculty. Service in these positions is not credited toward tenure. Faculty at these ranks will be appointed on one of the following contracts:

1. Professor of practice and senior professor of practice---term appointment. This appointment may be full time or part time. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. The Standards for Notice of Non-reappointment do not apply.
2. Professor of practice and senior professor of practice---regular appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. A professor/senior professor of practice on a regular appointment is a member of the general faculty, and is afforded all perquisites accorded to the general faculty. Regular appointees are entitled to Notice of Non-Reappointment, as appropriate (see C160, et seq., University Handbook).

Units that wish to use these faculty appointments must first include in their departmental documents the specific criteria that apply to these positions and the processes to be used for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluations and promotion. Persons appointed to the rank of professor of practice may be promoted to senior professor of practice on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relationship to their association with the university's mission and within their discipline. The senior professor of practice position demands a higher level of accomplishment consistent with the expectations based on specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the appropriate dean. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding the progress of professor(s) of practice toward or readiness for promotion review, per program/department review documents.

Recommendations for appointment, annual evaluation, and promotion shall be made according to the guidelines and procedures described in the University Handbook (see Section C) and departmental documents. Professor of practice positions will be awarded as one-year, regular or term contracts. Senior professor of practice positions may be awarded as one-year regular appointments, or as one-, two-, or three-year term appointments.

C12.4 Appointments at the rank of teaching assistant professor, teaching associate professor, and teaching professor. The primary responsibility for persons on these appointments will be instruction, although the entire set of expectations must be clearly defined in the offer letter. A component of the teaching appointment may include opportunity for scholarly achievement and service. Persons appointed to these positions will hold the terminal degree appropriate to the discipline. Individuals on these appointments are not eligible for tenure and are not eligible to vote on matters of tenure or promotion for tenure-track faculty. Service in these positions is not credited toward tenure. Faculty at these ranks will be appointed on one of the following contracts:

1. Teaching assistant professor; teaching associate professor; teaching professor--term appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. The Standards for Notice of Non-reappointment do not apply.
2. Teaching assistant professor, teaching associate professor, and teaching professor--regular appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. A teaching professor at any rank on a regular appointment is a member of the general faculty and is afforded all perquisites (see Section D) accorded to the general faculty. Regular appointees are entitled to Notice of Non-Reappointment (see C160, et seq., University Handbook).

Units that wish to use teaching faculty appointments must first include in their departmental documents the specific criteria that apply to these positions and the processes to be used for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluations, and promotion. Persons appointed to these ranks may expect to be promoted on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relationship to their association with the university's mission and within their discipline; typically, consideration for promotion from teaching assistant professor to teaching associate professor can occur after a five-year period as a teaching assistant professor. Consideration for promotion to teaching professor may occur in accordance with criteria established by the unit. Each higher rank demands a higher level of accomplishment consistent with the expectations based on specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the appropriate dean and set forth in the department document. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding their progress toward or readiness for promotion review.

Recommendations for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluation, and promotion shall be made according to the guidelines and procedures described in the University Handbook Section C and departmental documents. Teaching assistant professor positions will be awarded as one-year, regular or term contracts. Teaching associate professor and teaching professor positions may be awarded as one-year regular appointments, or as one-, two-, or three-year term appointments.

C12.5 Appointments at the rank of extension assistant professor, extension associate professor, and extension professor. In certain cases, the university's best interests are served by entering into ongoing relationships with personnel beyond the Extension Associate level. The entire set of expectations must be clearly defined in the offer letter. Individuals appointed to these positions should have extension credentials consistent with those mandated for the comparable tenure-track rank in their disciplines. Individuals on these appointments are not eligible for tenure and are not eligible to vote on matters of tenure or promotion for tenure-track faculty. Service in these positions is not credited toward tenure. Faculty at these ranks will be appointed on one of the following contracts:

1. Extension assistant professor; extension associate professor; extension professor – term appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. The Standards for Notice of Non-Reappointment do not apply.
2. Extension assistant professor; extension associate professor; extension professor -- regular appointment. This appointment may be full-time or part-time. An Extension professor at any rank on a regular appointment is a member of the general faculty and is afforded all perquisites (see Section D) accorded to the general faculty. Regular appointees are entitled to Notice of Non-Reappointment, as appropriate (see C160, et seq., University Handbook).

Units that wish to use these faculty appointments must first include in their departmental documents the specific criteria that apply to these positions and the processes to be used for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluations and promotion. Persons appointed to these ranks may expect to be promoted on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relationship to their association with the university's mission and within their own disciplines; typically, consideration for promotion from extension assistant professor to extension associate professor can occur after a five-year period as an extension assistant professor. Consideration for promotion to extension professor may occur in accordance with criteria established by the unit. Each higher rank demands a higher level of extension accomplishment. Annual evaluation and promotion are based upon an individual's achievements related to the specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the appropriate dean and set forth in the departmental documents. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding their progress toward or readiness for promotion review.

Recommendations for appointment, reappointment, annual evaluation, and promotion shall be made according to the guidelines and procedures described in the University Handbook Section C and departmental documents. Extension assistant professor positions will be awarded as one-year, regular or term contracts. Extension associate professor and extension professor positions may be awarded as one-year regular appointments, or as one-, two-, or three-year term appointments.

C12.6 Full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty members may apply to their department or unit head for a one-time, one-way transfer to one of the appointment categories specified in 12.0, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, or 12.5. See provisions regarding clinical track faculty in (12.2). A tenure-track faculty member must request the transfer prior to applying for tenure and promotion, and in any event must be made prior to but no later than September 1 of the final year in which the faculty member could be considered for tenure. All transfers must be approved by the college dean.

C13 Ranks and conditions for acquiring tenure. Tenure is not granted below the rank of associate professor, except in special circumstances approved by the provost. Tenure and promotion to associate professor often are granted concurrently. Service as assistant professor or above may be credited toward tenure. (FSM 2-14-90)

C14 Eligibility for professorial rank. Unclassified professionals (in student service departments or in other support units of the university) who are not associated with an academic department or unit are not eligible for professorial ranks. Because of tradition, academic rank is used for library and extension faculty not in an academic unit.

C15 Courtesy professorial appointment. Unclassified professionals in student service departments or in other support units of the university who are not associated with an academic department or unit may be granted courtesy professorial rank in academic departments, with the approval of the departmental faculty, dean, and provost. Persons granted such courtesy appointments will be expected to hold the terminal degree, or its equivalent, in the academic discipline of the department granting the courtesy appointment. Courtesy appointments do not carry with them the prospect of consideration for tenure or any other obligations on the part of the department. The extent to which the unclassified professional holding the courtesy appointment participates in the activities of the department in which the courtesy appointment is held is arranged between the department and the individual.

Appointment Procedures: Faculty

C20 General procedures. The department head/chair is advised on appointments by the faculty members of the department who have acquired tenure and hold a rank equal to or higher than the position to be filled. The department head/chair is responsible for making the candidate's file available in a timely fashion to the department faculty members who are eligible to make recommendations. For appointments at the rank of assistant professor, associate professor and professor, eligible department faculty members will advise the department head/chair through a vote on the appointment of the candidate at a given rank. The type of vote will be at the discretion of the department. The department head/chair forwards a written recommendation and accompanying explanation to the dean, along with the candidate's complete file, the results of the vote (if applicable), and the recommendation(s) and any written comments (unedited) of the eligible departmental faculty members. Initial contracts are issued by the provost. Recommendation for appointment of an individual to the faculty is normally made by a department head/chair to the appropriate dean after affirmative action procedures have been followed.

C21.1 Letter of expectation. Faculty members are appointed based upon their potential to advance the mission and expectations of the department. The department head/chair writes a letter of expectation to each prospective appointee describing the general responsibilities (see C1-C6) expected of her/him. A copy of the letter is forwarded to the dean and the provost, along with the recommendation for appointment.

C21.2 Policy to designate a change in salary for administrators who return to the faculty. When a tenured faculty member (existing or newly hired) is appointed to an administrative position and is entitled to an underlying position once the administrative duties are no longer assigned, a memorandum of understanding will accompany the administrative appointment. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) will specify the agreement between the appointee and the appropriate appointing administrator (president, provost, vice president, or dean) concerning any upward salary adjustment (or inclusion) for such administrative appointment and a commensurate downward salary adjustment at such time as the appointee no longer has the administrative duties. The MOU must be approved and signed by the appropriate administrator and the appointee. The adjustments generally will be based upon an appropriately determined percentage increase (or inclusion) and a commensurate percentage reduction in salary, and also by an 11/9ths conversion for a change from a nine-month to a 12-month contract and a 9/11ths conversion upon converting from a 12-month to a nine-month appointment.

Conditions of Employment for All Faculty and Unclassified Professionals

C22.1 Length of employment appointment Regular faculty and unclassified professional appointments may be either for the academic year (nine months) or for the fiscal year (12 months). Term faculty and unclassified professional appointments may be for the academic year (nine months) or the fiscal year (12 months) or shorter.

C22.2 All prospective faculty members, graduate teaching assistants, and unclassified professionals with teaching responsibilities will have their spoken English competency assessed in accordance with Kansas Board of Regents' policies. Refer to the PPM, Chapter 4650, section .075.

C22.3 Information about the pay date schedule is available on the HR website.

C22.4 Nine-month faculty and unclassified professionals do not accumulate or earn vacation leave. Their duties are closely related to the presence of students on the campus. Student recesses offer the nine-month faculty member an opportunity to engage in research and perform other necessary professional duties. In consideration of the professional nature of a faculty position, faculty members are expected to fulfill appropriate professional responsibilities throughout the academic year, including student recesses, exclusive of legal holidays. Information about the beginning of the academic year may be found in the university Academic Calendar (pdf).

C22.5 The holders of 12-month appointments are accountable for their time for a calendar or fiscal year rather than an academic year. Twelve month employees should check with their department heads/chairs regarding leave and vacation procedures. Leave types and usage are described more fully in E40-48 and PPM, Chapter 4860.

C23.1 Summer employment. The university offers a variety of variable-length sessions during the summer. All nine-month faculty members who will teach in summer school are notified that their names have been included at specified salaries in the tentative summer school budget. The summer salary for a faculty member will be negotiated between the faculty member and the department head/chair when the summer school assignments are made. Faculty members who teach a three-credit-hour summer course which is not part of their regular teaching assignment will be compensated at the negotiated salary, which may range between 70 to 100 percent of one-ninth of their full-time, nine-months' salary. This agreed-upon percentage will not be reduced at a later time during the summer at issue for a course that enrolls at least the predetermined minimum required number of students, regardless of the eventual class size. The nine-month academic year enrollment capacities are expected to be adhered to except for negotiated arrangements. If a class fails to meet the predetermined minimum enrollment, then at the instigation of the faculty member, negotiations may take place for a salary below the seventy percent figure provided the faculty member wishes to teach the class. For instances in which a faculty member's assigned summer duties are more than a normal load, additional compensation or support may be approved by the dean of the college and the provost. The additional salary policy, modified to reflect approval by the dean and provost, and in cases of continuing education courses, approval also by the Dean of Global Campus, would be followed. (FS 11/9/99)

Advising during the summer enrollment period and during the summer teaching period is an essential component of the university's mission. Thus, advising will be recognized as a legitimate component of recompensed activities during the summer period.

Faculty on summer appointments will be compensated at their current rate of pay through the end of the fiscal year. At the beginning of the fiscal year faculty will be compensated at their new rate of pay. Such compensation also applies to faculty supported on grant funds during the summer. Employment in the summer session earns for the faculty member all the fringe benefits that accrue monthly for regular nine-month appointments, except that sabbatical leave benefits do not take into account previous summer school employment. For 12-month faculty members, the summer session is considered a normal part of their duties.

C23.2 Nine-month faculty members may arrange up to three months' summer employment if the salary is paid from contract or grant funds.

Other Types of Appointments

C24 Interdisciplinary appointments. Normally, all tenure-track faculty members appointed to interdisciplinary programs who have not already acquired tenure at Kansas State University shall at the time of consideration for appointment identify the disciplinary department with which to be associated. Prior to appointment, a majority of the faculty members of the chosen disciplinary department must find the individual acceptable as a potential faculty member in their department.

C25.1 Adjunct appointments. Adjunct appointments are made for the benefit of the university to allow people from outside the university to contribute to its academic program. When appropriate, an academic department initiates a recommendation for an adjunct appointment at the faculty rank commensurate with the individual's qualifications. Approval of the college dean and the provost is required. Because the individual is allowed the courtesy of affiliation with the university, adjunct appointments are usually without compensation. Payment may be made for classroom instruction, although adjunct faculty members are normally not appointed to serve in the formal teaching program. Refer to the PPM, Chapter 4650.

C25.2 The activities of adjunct faculty members are limited to participation in academic functions such as teaching, advising, and supervising research. The regular procedures of the graduate faculty apply to any individual's participation in a graduate program. Adjunct appointees may serve as major professors for graduate students only if a regular member of the graduate faculty serves as co-major professor.

C25.3 All university rules and regulations apply to adjunct faculty members in their university association, including policies with respect to patents, conflict of interest, classified research, and use of human subjects. Adjunct faculty members must accept responsibility for liability in cases of supervised student work off-campus.

C25.4 Adjunct faculty members are not granted tenure, nor are they eligible to vote or hold office in any unit of university governance.

C25.5 In recognition of their contribution to the academic community, the university extends to adjunct appointees residing in Kansas the use of university libraries; employee rates for athletic, Kansas State Union, and cultural events; and parking privileges.

C27 Ancillary appointments. Ancillary appointments are made for the benefit of a department to allow faculty from other university departments to contribute to its academic programs. Members who are on regular faculty appointments in other departments or units on campus are eligible. The goal is to foster ties between departments with similar and/or complementary disciplinary interests.

C27.1 An eligible faculty member may be nominated for an ancillary appointment by a faculty member in the host department or by the host department head/chair. The nomination should be discussed with other faculty in both of the departments that the appointment may affect. The nomination should include a letter of nomination, curriculum vitae of the candidate, and a statement outlining the benefits both to the candidate and to the hosting department. Prior to appointment, a majority of the faculty members from the host department must find the individual acceptable as an ancillary faculty member. The appointment must be approved by the host department head/chair, host dean, and the provost. The candidate must also have approval from his/her home department head/chair and dean.

C27.2 An ancillary appointment is a five-year term and is contingent upon a continuing regular faculty appointment. To be reappointed, the candidate must be re-nominated and approved by the process outlined above.

C27.3 The activities of an ancillary appointment may include teaching, interaction in scholarly and creative endeavors, participation in graduate programs, and serving on graduate student committees. The regular procedures of the graduate faculty apply to any individual's participation in a graduate program. Departments may develop more specific guidelines and policies related to these appointments.

C27.4 Ancillary appointments are without compensation. Ancillary faculty members are subject to all rules and regulations that apply to members of the host department including but not limited to patents, conflict of interest, classified research, and use of human subjects. Ancillary faculty members are not granted tenure, nor are they eligible to vote or hold office in the host department. Ancillary appointments may be recognized in all appropriate departmental documents and literature pertaining to academic programs.

Other Considerations

C29.1 Other considerations. As a general policy, tenure-track faculty appointments will not be offered to persons whose last earned academic degree is from Kansas State University unless extensive intervening experience was acquired elsewhere. In unusual and meritorious cases, the provost may make exceptions to this policy.

C29.2 The university will not grant an advanced degree to a faculty member who holds the rank of assistant professor or higher, with the following exceptions: Faculty members in these ranks may be permitted to work for degrees outside their own departments, provided that the degrees are not required for promotion or tenure in their own departments.

General Issues of Evaluation for All Faculty and Unclassified Professionals

C30.1 Purposes of evaluations. Personnel decisions concerning annual merit salary adjustments, reappointment, tenure, and promotion are based on appropriate and meaningful evaluation. Evaluation should also provide an opportunity for professional growth and an enhanced commitment to fostering excellence at Kansas State University. Meaningful, fair, and equitably administered evaluation at all levels is vital to the good of the university and to the welfare of its employees.

C30.2 A fundamental function of assessments of performance is to produce judgments on the effectiveness of the performance and to help assure that personnel decisions are both reasonable and defensible.

C30.3 Renewal, development and improvement are critically important to the university in its pursuit of excellence. Each unit should develop means of providing feedback to the individual employee so that he/she can maintain high levels of performance. In addition, employees have a personal responsibility to maintain or improve performance and are encouraged to participate in professional development activities. Those individuals with supervisory authority shall guide and assist those they supervise with such improvement activities. Often an agency external to the unit can contribute to this process. For example, the Teaching and Learning Center provides independent and confidential help to strengthen teaching, and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs assists with efforts to design projects and secure extramural funding.

C30.4 Evaluation procedures of close relatives. Under university policy no one shall participate in any way in the evaluation of a close relative. (When such situations occur, responsibility for the evaluation of a close relative must, in consultation with the administrator to whom the employee reports, establish an evaluation procedure that will avoid this conflict of interest. (See PPM Chapter 4095 for definition of close relative and additional information.)

C31.1 Departmental/unit criteria, standards, and guidelines. The possibility does not exist at the university or college levels to establish detailed criteria and standards for annual merit salary adjustments, reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The responsibility for developing and revising an annual evaluation system for faculty and unclassified professionals rests primarily with the department's/unit's faculty and unclassified professionals in consultation with the department's/unit's administrative head/chair, dean, vice-president, provost or president, as appropriate, depending upon the department's/unit's reporting structure. The evaluation system that is developed should be consistent with the university's goals as well as those of the unit. Each administrative unit will develop a procedure in accordance with applicable policy.

C31.2 A department/unit's evaluation system must be mutually approved by a majority vote of the faculty and/or unclassified professionals in the unit (each votes only on the system used for evaluating their own performance; i.e., faculty vote on their unit’s faculty evaluation system, unclassified professionals vote on their unit’s unclassified professional evaluation system), by the unit's administrative head, and by the respective dean and provost or appropriate vice-president. The date of final approval must appear on the first page. Provision must be made for review of the department/unit criteria, standards, and guidelines at least once every five years or more frequently if determined to be necessary by any of the aforementioned parties. Revisions also must be approved by the process described above. Dates of revision (or the vote to continue without revision) must appear on the first page.

C31.3 Criteria, standards, and guidelines for evaluation must be consistent with expectations for the department or unit as determined by the university in conjunction with the college or other administrative divisions to which the department or unit reports. This ensures clarity of departmental/unit priorities while providing for significant variance in the responsibilities and assignments of individual faculty members and unclassified professionals.

C31.4 Responsibility lies with the deans and the provost to ensure that departmental/unit criteria, standards, and guidelines are followed in making recommendations and decisions for merit salary adjustments, reappointment, promotion, and tenure within the colleges, or other academic units. Responsibility lies with the vice presidents and their subordinate administrators in making recommendations and decisions for merit salary adjustments, reappointment, and promotion within their respective units.

Chronic Low Achievement for Tenured Faculty Evaluation

C31.5 Chronic failure of a tenured faculty member to perform his/her professional duties, as defined in the respective unit, shall constitute evidence of "professional incompetence" and warrant consideration for "dismissal for cause" under existing university policies. Each department or unit shall develop a set of guidelines describing the minimum-acceptable level of productivity for each applicable area of responsibility for the faculty, as well as procedures to handle such cases. In keeping with regular procedures in matters of tenure (C112.1 and C112.2), eligible departmental faculty will have input into any decision on individual cases unless the faculty member requests otherwise. When a tenured faculty member's overall performance falls below the minimum-acceptable level, as indicated by the annual evaluation, the department or unit head/chair shall indicate so in writing to the faculty member. The department head/chair will also indicate, in writing, a suggested course of action to improve the performance of the faculty member. In subsequent annual evaluations, the faculty member will report on activities aimed at improving performance and any evidence of improvement. The names of faculty members who fail to meet minimum standards for the year following the department head's/chair's suggested course of action will be forwarded to the appropriate dean. If the faculty member has two successive evaluations or a total of three evaluations in any five-year period in which minimum standards are not met, then "dismissal for cause" will be considered at the discretion of the appropriate dean.

C31.6 Section C31.5 is about revocation of tenure in individual cases. Tenure is essential for the protection of the independence of the teaching and research faculty in institutions of higher learning in the United States. Decisions about revocation of tenure, especially if the grounds are professional incompetence, should not be exclusively controlled or determined by and should not be unduly influenced by single individuals without input from faculty. Moreover, "dismissal for cause" in cases of professional incompetence can only be based on departmental guidelines about minimum-acceptable levels of performance that apply generally to all members of the department or unit and are distinct from individually determined annual goals. Consequently, C31.5 establishes a departmental and faculty procedure for the decision about the revocation of tenure for professional incompetence. The department or unit is responsible for develop “a set of guidelines describing the minimum acceptable level of productivity for each applicable area of responsibility." These minimum standards are not the same as those referred to in C31.1 or C41.1. Guidelines concerning minimum acceptable levels of productivity will vary considerably from unit to unit. Not only disciplinary differences but differences in philosophies of departmental administration are appropriate. What is not appropriate is the undue protection of non-contributing members of the faculty.

C31.7 Prior to the point at which "dismissal for cause" is considered under C31.5, other less drastic actions should have been taken. In most cases, the faculty member's deficient performance ("below expectations" or worse) in one or more areas of responsibility will have been noted in prior annual evaluations. At that point, the first responsibility of the head/chair of the department or unit is to determine explicitly whether the duties assigned to the faculty member have been equitable in the context of the distribution of duties within the unit and to correct any inequities affecting the faculty member under review. Second, the head/chair of the department or unit should have offered the types of assistance indicated in C30.3. Referral for still other forms of assistance (e.g., medical or psychological) may be warranted. Third, if the deficient performance continues in spite of these efforts and recommendations, the department head/chair and the faculty member may agree to a reallocation of the faculty member's time so that he/she no longer has duties in the area(s) of deficient performance. Such reallocation can occur only if there are one or more areas of better performance in the faculty member's profile and if the reallocation is possible in the larger context of the department's or unit's mission, needs, and resources.

C31.8 To help clarify the relationship between annual evaluations for merit, salary, and promotion and evaluations that could lead to C31.5, the following recommendations are made:

1. Annual evaluations should be stated in terms of expectations. The categories should include at least the following: "exceeded expectations," "met expectations," "fallen below expectations but has met minimum-acceptable levels of productivity," and "fallen below minimum acceptable levels of productivity," with the "minimum acceptable levels of productivity" referring to the minimum standards called for in C31.5.
2. The department's or unit's guidelines for "minimum acceptable levels of productivity" should clearly explain how the department or unit will determine when a tenured faculty member's low performance in one or more annual evaluations fails overall to meet the minimum acceptable level, a determination which will begin the process of deciding on a finding of chronic low achievement. "Overall" will reflect the common and dictionary meaning of "comprehensive." This determination may be based on any of the following or a combination thereof, but should be stated clearly to avoid ex post facto judgments:
   1. A certain percentage of total responsibilities
   2. Number of areas of responsibility
   3. Weaknesses not balanced by strengths
   4. Predetermined agreements with the faculty member about the relative importance of different areas of responsibility.

Other Considerations for Faculty Evaluation

C32.1 Diversity of faculty responsibilities. The responsibilities of the university faculty include teaching, research and other creative activities, extension, directed service, and/or non-directed service (see C1-C6.) The emphasis given to these responsibilities varies among the colleges and departments of the university and may well vary from individual to individual within a department.

C32.2 Kansas State University has several important missions, and a fundamental one is the education of students. Evaluation of teaching is an important part of the overall faculty evaluation. An evaluation is used to aid faculty development and foster a commitment to teaching excellence at Kansas State University.

C32.3 A variety of teaching environments and pedagogies are critical to institutional excellence. Departments will establish criteria and standards for all forms of teaching appropriate to their missions.

C32.4 Original intellectual and artistic contributions fulfill a fundamental mission of the university and are crucial to institutional excellence. There is great diversity in the scholarly and creative achievement of the university faculty, and departments will establish criteria and standards for all forms of research and other creative achievement appropriate to their missions.

C32.5 Extension specialists, who teach in diverse settings across the state, are expected to use a variety of teaching methods and strategies. The effectiveness of the extension program developed by a specialist is measured in terms of skills, attitudes, and knowledge gained by the targeted audiences. The criteria and standards for evaluating specialist performance are developed by the departments and units that have extension faculty members.

C32.6 The directed service performed by librarians, clinicians, and others in similar positions is evaluated for reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions. Criteria and standards for these responsibilities are developed by the departments and units that include the services.

C32.7 Evaluation of non-directed service (profession-based service, institution-based service, and public-based professional service) is a part of a candidate's responsibilities. However, non-directed service cannot be the major grounds upon which tenure or promotion is based. Each department establishes criteria and standards for faculty activity in university governance and for work in professional associations and activities within and outside the university.

C33 Multiple data sources for evaluations. Professional performance is complex and cannot be evaluated adequately based on a single source of information. Faculty evaluations should be based on multiple sources of data for each area evaluated in order to provide various perspectives and to avoid a concentration on narrow performance objectives.

C34.1 Student feedback on classroom instruction. In most cases, documentation submitted by faculty members with teaching responsibilities would be considered incomplete and presumed inadequate, unless evidence of teaching effectiveness is included. Student feedback on classroom instruction is an important source of information in the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, provided that the format includes controls for student motivation and other possible bias. The form should contain directions that indicate how the information is used, and the forms should be administered and collected under controlled conditions that assure students' anonymity. Each academic unit should determine the student feedback form to be used by its faculty that conforms to the guidelines specified above. Faculty members, including professors, instructors, graduate teaching assistants, adjuncts, etc., shall collect student feedback for each course and section they teach in order to provide themselves and their departments with information pertaining to teaching effectiveness as well as provide material for the assessment of the relationships between Student Learning Objectives (SLO) achievement and teaching. Exceptions are individualized courses (e.g., research hours at the 899 and 999 levels, independent study). Faculty members engaged in individualized instruction should be guided by the unit's criteria for evaluating such instruction (see C32.2).

C34.2 Student feedback should never be the only source of information about classroom teaching. Departments or units should be encouraged to develop a comprehensive, flexible approach to teaching evaluation, where several types of evidence can be collected, presented and evaluated as a portfolio. Peers, administrators, and other appropriate judges also can offer useful insights about a faculty member's teaching performance. Peer evaluation, defined as a critical review by colleagues knowledgeable of the entire range of teaching activities, can be an important component of the university's teaching evaluation program since peers are often in the best position to interpret and understand the evidence and place in proper academic context. Data other than student feedback that provide relevant evidence of teaching effectiveness are described in "Effective Faculty Evaluation: Annual Salary Adjustment, Tenure and Promotion." Examples include: course materials such as reading lists, syllabi, and examinations; special contributions to effective teaching for diverse student populations; preparation of innovative teaching materials or instructional techniques; special teaching activities outside the university; exit interviews, and graduate interviews and surveys to obtain information about teaching effectiveness.

C34.3 A department or unit's policies and procedures may specify that submission of student feedback will be mandatory and further specify the student feedback system(s) to be employed for the purposes of making personnel recommendations concerning annual merit salary, reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In such instances, departmental procedures for administering student feedback forms or questionnaires should be standardized in order to minimize extraneous influences when results are compared within a department. Assistance with establishing such procedures is available from the Teaching and Learning Center.

C34.4 Regardless of the form or system used, the results or reports shall be returned only to the faculty member unless that individual has provided signed authorization to release the results to others. University policy requires that results of student feedback not be returned to faculty members until after the semester deadline for submitting grades. The only deviation from this procedure is the return of student feedback that are being used by a faculty member to develop mid-semester strategies for improvement; in these cases, the students must be informed that the results will be returned to the instructor before grades have been submitted.

C34.5 Some student feedback systems are designed primarily to help faculty members improve their teaching. Faculty members are encouraged to decide individually what means are used to ascertain student views of their teaching in order to improve. Other student ratings systems are designed primarily to aid in the comparative evaluation of faculty members within a department for the purposes of making personnel recommendations concerning annual merit salary, reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Each department or unit's policies and procedures indicate the student feedback system(s) to be employed for the latter purposes. Faculty members are free to submit supplemental student views from instruments or other methods of their own choice.

C35 Confidentiality of documents. Faculty should not expect that their peer evaluations gathered from individuals at Kansas State University and at other institutions will be available to them, except in association with grievance proceedings (see Appendix G).

These materials, along with other documents reflecting the peer review process will be retained by the dean of the college, as will the candidates' files submitted for promotion or tenure consideration. Where actual copies of books or other creative or scholarly works are submitted, these materials may be returned to candidates upon completion of the review process. Upon request of the candidate following the completion of the review process for tenure or promotion, the dean will have a detailed discussion with the candidate and provide a written summary of the information leading to the decision.

C36.1 Outside reviewers. Persons outside the university who are recognized for excellence in the candidate's discipline or profession may be asked to participate as reviewers in evaluations for tenure and promotion. Each reviewer should be provided a written description of the candidate's responsibilities during the period being evaluated and pertinent materials from the candidate's file. Because outside reviewers are most likely to be familiar with and able to judge a candidate's research and other creative endeavor and are likely to review only that area of performance, this aspect should be recognized and the review weighted accordingly.

C36.2 The value of outside reviews depends on the appropriate choice of objective reviewers. Comments from a candidate's major professor or graduate school classmates are generally less persuasive and should, as a rule, be avoided.

Other Considerations for Unclassified Professional Evaluations

C37 All evaluations of unclassified professionals should explicitly consider the position description for that employee in the assessment of annual performance. Understandably, any position description will possess a degree of generality and flexibility (i.e., “other duties as assigned”) such that specific duties may be adjusted in accordance with the evolving needs of a department or unit. However, if a current position description is not on file with the appropriate unit, or if the current duties of the employee differ in important respects from the position description on file, a new position description should be developed in consultation with the employee as the basis for any valid evaluation.

In regard to unclassified professional evaluations, the following guidelines should be followed:

1. Annual evaluations should be stated in terms of expectations. The categories should include at least the following: "exceeded expectations," "met expectations," "fallen below expectations but has met minimum acceptable levels of productivity," and "fallen below minimum acceptable levels of productivity.” These categories should clearly reference the duties included in the position description.
2. Annual written evaluations should articulate the basis of the categorical rating assigned. This narrative should provide meaningful detail and/or guidance regarding how the employee might improve or maintain the assigned category of evaluation in the coming year.
3. At minimum, all annual evaluations of unclassified professionals should include a written evaluation and a meeting between the evaluating supervisor and the employee. In the spirit of continuous improvement for both the unit and the professional staff member, this meeting should further elaborate upon the written evaluation, explore goals for the coming year, provide an opportunity to ask questions, and offer clear recommendations for how to address any articulated deficiencies.

C37.1 Confidentiality of documents. When applicable, peers who are asked to participate in a review process for another employee should be able to provide confidential input. For that reason, unclassified professionals should not expect that peer evaluations gathered from individuals at Kansas State University and at other institutions will be available to them, except in association with grievance proceedings (see Appendix G). These materials, along with other documents reflecting a peer review process, will be retained by the relevant dean or equivalent administrator.

Tenure and Promotion Procedures for Department Heads/Chairs

C38 Each college is responsible for establishing departmental procedures to follow when department heads/chairs are candidates for tenure or promotion. In these cases, all eligible faculty members within the particular department have the primary responsibility for judging the qualifications of a candidate, and the criteria and standards used must be the same as those established by the department for other faculty members.

Evaluation of Graduate Teaching Assistants

C39 Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) provide very valuable contributions to the missions of the university by participating in the instruction of undergraduate courses and in research and scholarly activities. GTAs' tasks may range from grading assignments to the instruction of one or more sections of courses under departmental supervision. When GTAs are involved in classroom teaching, their skills in communicating and interacting with students are important in the effective transfer of information. In order to assure high quality instruction, it is necessary that GTAs teaching for the first time at Kansas State University be assessed as to their instructional skills. Feedback from students in class is a valuable source for this information, and can be used for both improvement of skills and for management purposes by the department.

Each academic department shall have or put into place procedures for obtaining student feedback on instructional skills of GTAs teaching for the first time at Kansas State University. Departments may use their own assessment and analysis procedures, or adopt the procedures available through the Office of Assessment. These assessments should be conducted during lecture, recitation or laboratory sessions about three weeks after the beginning of the semester. As a minimum, this process should include (1) assessment of basic communication skills such as enunciation, clarity, and loudness; (2) assessment of interactive skills in responding to student questions; (3) assessment as to whether the lecture presentations are organized; (4) provision for feedback to the GTA and implementation of corrective measures when needed; (5) collection of normative data; and (6) provision for a follow-up assessment if serious concerns arise. The results of the assessment should be provided to the GTA, the professor-in-charge, department/unit head, and provost. The results should also be transmitted to the dean of the appropriate college when serious concerns are raised about the GTA's communication skills. When GTAs are unable to meet a basic standard of communication performance as specified in the departmental/Office of Assessment procedures, corrective action should be taken to remedy the situation.

C39.1 Disputes concerning graduate assistants’ (GTA/GRA/GA) performance are employment matters that should be originated with the appointing department and be addressed through normal supervisory channels. The students should begin addressing the concern with the assigned supervisor of the assistantship and, if necessary, proceed to the department or unit head. If the matter is not resolved at the department or unit level, the student may present it to the Dean of the College in which the (GTA/GRA/GA) is employed. Formal grievance procedures do not apply to these appointments (see Appendix A of the Graduate Handbook.

C41 The procedures for Annual Evaluation of Administrators have been moved to Section C43.

Annual Evaluation and Merit Increases for Faculty and Professional Staff

C40 The evaluation will provide the basis for any merit pay increases in salary. See C30-C39 for additional guidance on evaluation processes.

C42 Evaluation period.

The evaluation period will be the same for all individuals in the department/unit, with the possible exception of first year appointees and individuals who have been on leave for all or a part of the year. The unit's evaluation system will normally be based on performance during the 12-month evaluation period ending December 31. However, department/units may, on the basis of a majority vote choose any other 12-month period for evaluation (e.g., the fiscal year from July 1 to June 30). Depending on its goals and objectives, a department/unit’s evaluation system may include accomplishments that have occurred over a period of time longer than one year. The evaluation system also may specify that a rolling average of the person's annual evaluation results for several preceding years be used to determine relative salary recommendations to minimize inequities due to variable legislative actions from year to year. Faculty and unclassified professionals in such units will receive merit salary adjustments, if any, up to 12 months after the conclusion of the evaluation period.

C42.1 For first-year appointees, units have the option of a) recommending an increase based on the individual's evaluation (adjusted proportionally to encompass the entire year), b) recommending an average increase, or c) recommending the larger of the above, since the length of time for evaluating performance was limited. Such individuals are also eligible for salary adjustments on bases outside the annual evaluation (e.g., market, equity).

C42.2 Faculty and unclassified professionals on leave. The unit may evaluate individuals who were on sabbatical leave or other leave for a portion of the year on the basis of their performance during the period of engagement in university assignments, and, if so, merit recommendations should be consistent with this evaluation (adjusted proportionally to encompass the entire year). If the leave was for the entire year, the individual's average evaluation for recent years, not to exceed six years, may serve as the basis of the merit increase recommendation. Such individuals are also eligible for salary adjustments on bases outside the annual evaluation.

Annual Evaluation of Administrators

C43 Performance evaluations of all heads/chairs/directors/associate and assistant deans and other unclassified administrative supervisors in academic and non-academic departments/units are completed annually for merit increases. Individuals under their direct supervision, as well as other faculty, unclassified professionals, university support staff, and clientele as specified in the department's/unit's evaluation system, may be asked to provide input identifying strengths, weaknesses and issues relevant to the administrator’s annual performance. (FSM 11/10/09 revisions) The method used to collect feedback should be private and confidential, and the feedback shall be anonymous to the individual being reviewed. An example of a method that may be used to protect the privacy and confidentiality of those submitting annual evaluation materials would be electronic surveys, available through the Office of Planning and Analysis. Confidentiality and anonymity cannot be guaranteed, such as when safety, security, or due process requires disclosure. Individuals also may choose to use other methods to provide confidential feedback to the supervisor of the individual being reviewed. A description of the five-year review process for administrators is given in Section C159.

Responsibilities of Faculty and Unclassified Professionals Who Are Evaluated

C45.1 Each faculty member will meet annually with the unit head to jointly establish goals and objectives in research and other creative endeavors, teaching, extension, and directed and non-directed service for the upcoming evaluation period and to discuss their relative importance within the context of the unit's goals. Each unclassified professional will meet annually with the unit head to jointly establish goals and objectives for the year. For all faculty and unclassified professionals, these goals and objectives should reflect the relative percentages of time and effort the person plans to allocate to the appropriate areas in the upcoming period. It is expected that the previous year's statement will be considered during the annual evaluation and goal setting process. For faculty, the relative emphasis placed on research and other creative endeavors, teaching, extension, and directed and non-directed service may vary over the course of the person's career. For unclassified professionals, major changes in duties and responsibilities (either in response to the changing needs of the unit or in consideration of employee abilities) should be discussed and reflected in an updated position description.

C45.2 Each faculty and/or unclassified professional will provide an annual written summary of accomplishments and activities in accordance with the guidelines provided by the unit's statement of criteria, standards, and procedures.

C45.3 Each faculty and unclassified professional will review, and must have the opportunity to discuss, her or his written evaluation with the department head/chair or supervisor who prepared the evaluation. Before the unit head/chair submits it to the next administrative level, each faculty or unclassified professional employee must sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review and to discuss the evaluation and his/her relative position in the planned assignment of merit salary increases within the unit. Because the amount of funds available for merit increases is generally not known at this time, specific percentage increases will not normally be discussed. Within seven working days after the review and discussion, faculty and unclassified professionals have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations by the unit head/chair to the unit head/chair. The statement of unresolved differences should be attached to and maintained with the evaluation.

Responsibilities of Unit/Department Heads/Chairs

C46.1 The unit head/chair will prepare by February 28, a written evaluation for each faculty and professional staff person, whether full or part-time, regular or term. Quantitative ratings may be used to summarize evaluative judgments; however, the basis for these judgments must be explained by a narrative account. The evaluation shall provide succinct assessments of effectiveness in performing each responsibility, and these statements must include summaries of the achievements and evidence that support these assessments. Performance reviews of faculty and other unclassified employees will include consideration of overall contribution or detriment to the department/unit, which includes citizenship and other personal conduct affecting the workplace. Faculty and other unclassified employees are expected to have cooperative interactions with colleagues, show civility and respect to others with whom they work and interact, show respect for the opinions of others in the exchange of ideas, and demonstrate a willingness to follow appropriate directives from supervisors.

C46.2 The unit head/chair will recommend a salary adjustment for each person evaluated. The recommended percentage increases based on the annual evaluation for persons with higher levels of accomplishment shall exceed those for persons with lower levels of accomplishment. If merit salary categories are utilized, then the percentage recommended for persons in the first category will be higher than those for the second category, which in turn shall exceed those for level of accomplishment in the third category, etc. As a guide, average percentage increases in the highest category are expected to be about twice those in the lowest category; this ratio is expected to fluctuate both with the degree to which members of the unit differ in effectiveness and with the degree to which funds are available. These recommendations are made before the legislature has appropriated funds to support salary increases. Therefore, percentage increases should be projected and identified for each individual or each merit salary category, if used, based upon the governor's budget recommendations. Recommendations of dollar and percentage increases should not be communicated to individuals until the appropriation for salary increases is known.

C46.3 The unit head/chair will ensure that each faculty or unclassified professional has had the opportunity to review and discuss his or her written evaluation. Within seven working days after the review and discussion, unclassified employees have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations to the unit/department head/chair.

C46.4 The unit head/chair who prepared the evaluations must submit the following items to the appropriate dean (or, for support units, the appropriate administrator): (See schedule as published on the provost's web site.

1. A copy of the evaluation system used to prepare the evaluations.
2. A written evaluation for each regularly appointed faculty or unclassified professional employed for at least three months during the calendar year.
3. A recommended merit salary adjustment for each faculty member or unclassified professional that should be based directly on the person's evaluation.
4. Documentation (e.g., a statement signed by the individual evaluated) establishing that there was an opportunity to examine the written evaluation and to discuss with the evaluator the individual's resulting relative standing for the purpose of merit salary increase in the unit.
5. Any written statements submitted by faculty or unclassified professionals of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations.
6. Any recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluation, together with documentation which supports these recommendations.

Responsibilities of Deans and Comparable Administrators

C47.1 The dean/comparable administrator will review evaluation materials and recommendations to ensure:

1. merit evaluations are consistent with the criteria and procedures approved for the unit,
2. merit salary recommendations are consistent with merit evaluations, and
3. recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluations are adequately and rationally documented.

C47.2 A dean/comparable administrator who does not agree with recommendations for merit salary increases made by a unit head/chair must attempt to reach consensus through consultation. If this fails, the dean's/comparable administrator’s recommendation will be used. If any change has been made, the dean/comparable administrator must notify, in writing, the individual of the change and its rationale. Within seven working days after notification, such individuals have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations to the dean/comparable administrator and to the provost or appropriate vice president. All statements of unresolved differences will be included in the documentation to be forwarded to the next administrative level. All recommendations are forwarded to the provost/appropriate vice president.

C47.3 The dean/comparable administrator should provide guidelines for making salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluation and for justifying these requests through appropriate documentation. Approved requests are forwarded to the provost/appropriate vice president.

C47.4 The dean/comparable administrator must forward to the provost/vice president all salary recommendations and supporting documentation (which may include written evaluations; written statements of unresolved differences; recommended actions; justifications for salary adjustments on bases outside the annual evaluation process) as determined by the provost/vice president. (See schedule as published by the provost each October).

Responsibilities of the President, Provost, and Vice Presidents

C48.1 The president/provost/vice president will review evaluation materials and recommendations for those individuals reporting to them to ensure:

1. the evaluation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the criteria and procedures approved by the unit,
2. merit salary recommendations are consistent with merit evaluations, and
3. recommendations for salary adjustments on bases outside of the annual evaluations are adequately documented.

C48.2 If the president/provost/vice president does not agree with recommendations for salary increases made by subordinate administrators, an attempt must be made to reach consensus through consultation. If this fails, the president’s/provost's/vice president’s recommendation will be used. The individual affected by the disagreement must be notified by the president/provost/vice president, in writing, of the change and its rationale.

C48.3 The dean or appropriate vice president will issue to each continuing faculty and/or unclassified professional individual a contract which includes the individual's salary for the next fiscal year.

Professorial Performance Award

C49.1 Significance of the Award. The Professorial Performance Award rewards strong performance at the highest rank with a base salary increase in addition to that provided for by the annual evaluation process. The Performance Award review is not a form of promotion review. The Performance Award does not create a "senior" professoriate. Furthermore, the Professorial Performance Award is neither a right accorded to every faculty member at the rank of Professor, nor granted simply as a result of a candidate's routinely meeting assigned duties with a record free of notable deficiencies.

C49.2 Development and Revisions of the Professorial Performance Award Process. Departments develop their own mechanisms for review as for annual merit evaluation. As is the case in merit review, responsibility for the evaluation of materials involves personnel of any rank or several ranks. Each department will also specify criteria according to which candidates qualify for the award according to its own disciplinary standards of excellence. Nonetheless, all such criteria for the award will adhere to the following guidelines: 1. The candidate must be a full-time professor (either tenured or non-tenure-track) and have been in rank at Kansas State University at least six years since the last promotion or Professorial Performance Award; 2. The candidate must show evidence of sustained productivity in at least the last six years before the performance review; and 3. The candidate's productivity and performance must be of a quality comparable to that which would merit promotion to professor according to current approved departmental standards.

C49.3 The Professorial Performance Award document must be approved by a majority vote of the faculty in the department, by the department's administrative head, by the dean and by the provost. Provision must be made for a review of the document at least every five years as a part of the review of the procedures for annual merit evaluation or whenever standards for promotion to full professor change.

C49.4 Recommendations for the Professorial Performance Award will follow the timeline associated with the annual evaluation review outlined in the University Handbook.

C49.5 Responsibilities of Professorial Performance Award Candidates. Eligible candidates for review compile and submit a file that documents her or his professional accomplishments for at least the previous six years in accordance with the criteria, standards, and guidelines established by the department. The department head/chair, in conjunction with whatever mechanism departmental procedures specify for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Professorial Performance Award, will prepare a written evaluation of the candidate's materials in terms of the criteria, standards, and guidelines established, along with a recommendation for or against the award.

C49.6 Each candidate for the award will have the opportunity to discuss the written evaluation and recommendation with the department head, and each candidate will sign a statement acknowledging the opportunity to review the evaluation. Within seven working days after the review and discussion, each candidate has the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding his or her evaluation to the department head/chair and to the dean. A copy of the department head's/chair’s written recommendation will be forwarded to the candidate.

C49.7 The department head must submit the following items to the appropriate dean:

1. A copy of the evaluation document used to determine qualification for the award,
2. Documentation establishing that there was an opportunity for the candidate to examine the written evaluation and recommendation,
3. Any written statements of unresolved differences concerning the evaluation,
4. The candidate's supporting materials that served as the basis of adjudicating eligibility for the award.

C49.8 Responsibilities of the Deans. The dean will review all evaluation materials and recommendations to ensure that the evaluations are consistent with the criteria and procedures established by the department for the Professorial Performance Award.

C49.9 A dean who does not agree with recommendations for the Professorial Performance Award made by a department head/chair must attempt to reach consensus through consultation. If this fails, the dean's recommendation will be used. If any change has been made to the department head's recommendations, the dean must notify the candidate, in writing, of the change and its rationale. Within seven working days after notification, such candidates have the opportunity to submit written statements of unresolved differences regarding their evaluations to the dean and to the provost. All statements of unresolved differences will be included in the documentation to be forwarded to the next administrative level. All recommendations are forwarded to the provost.

C49.10 Responsibilities of the Provost. The provost will review all evaluation materials and recommendations to ensure that the evaluation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the criteria and procedures approved by the unit.

C49.11 If the provost does not agree with recommendations for Professorial Performance Awards made by subordinate administrators, an attempt must be made to reach consensus through consultation. If this fails, the provost's decision will prevail. The candidate affected by the disagreement must be notified by the provost, in writing, of the change and its rationale.

C49.12 Basis and source of the award amount. The Professorial Performance Award will be 8% of the average salary of all full-time faculty (instructor through professor excluding administrators at those ranks). However, funding for the award cannot come out of the legislatively-approved merit increment.

C49.13 Cost of Awards. In the event that financial conditions in a given year preclude awarding the full amount as designated in C49.12, the provost shall in concert with the vice president for administration and finance adopt a plan to phase in the full award for all that year's approved candidates.

C49.14 Upon official notification from the Office of the Provost, the dean will consolidate the Professorial Performance Award with salary increases resulting from annual evaluation and issue the candidate a contract that includes the candidate's salary for the next fiscal year. The Professorial Performance Award will become part of the professor's base salary.

Reappointment: Faculty on Probationary Appointments

C50.1 Definition. Faculty members on probationary appointments are evaluated annually to determine whether or not they will be reappointed for another year. Faculty members must be explicitly informed by the dean in writing of a decision not to renew their appointments in accordance with The Standards of Notice of Non-Reappointment. (See C162.3) These annual evaluations also serve as an opportunity to provide feedback to a faculty member on probationary appointment about his or her performance in comparison to the department's criteria and standards for tenure.

C50.2 Reappointments that confer tenure are discussed in C70-C116.

C51 Departments' charge to establish criteria and standards. See C30-C38: General Issues of Faculty Evaluation. Copies of these criteria and standards are available to faculty members in their departmental or unit offices.

C52 Candidate's responsibilities. The candidate compiles and submits documentation of his or her professional accomplishments in accordance with the criteria, standards, and guidelines established by the department.

C53.1 Departmental procedures. It is the responsibility of the department head/chair to make the candidate's reappointment file available to all tenured faculty members in the department and other eligible faculty as determined by departmental policy. A cumulative record of written recommendations and accompanying explanations forwarded to the candidate from previous reappointment meetings, and any written comments from relevant individuals outside the department will also be made available to the eligible faculty (see C53.2). As part of this process, the department head/chair and the eligible faculty will meet at least fourteen calendar days after the review documents are made available, to discuss the candidate's eligibility for reappointment and progress toward tenure. Subsequent to this meeting there will be a ballot of the eligible faculty on reappointment of the candidate. Any member of the eligible faculty may, prior to the submission of any recommendation to the department head/chair, request the candidate meet with the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the record of accomplishment submitted by the candidate.

C53.2 For individuals with appointments in more than one unit or department, comments may be solicited from other eligible faculty members in the college or university relevant to the assessment of the candidate's performance. In the case of K-State Research and Extension faculty members or faculty members whose primary responsibilities are in directed service (e.g., librarians and clinicians), the comments of various clientele served may be solicited as part of the evaluation for reappointment.

C53.3 The department head/chair will provide a letter which includes his/her recommendation and the rationale for the recommendation, redacted comments to protect anonymity, and the faculty vote to the candidate. The letter will become part of the candidate’s reappointment file. This letter along with, all recommendations and non-redacted written comments of the department's eligible tenured faculty members and the candidate's complete file are also forwarded to the dean The department head/chair will also meet with the candidate to discuss the candidate's progress toward tenure.

C54 College procedures. The dean, along with the recommendation of the department head/chair and, on behalf of the college, forwards the letter to the provost, and the majority recommendation and any written comments (unedited) of the faculty members in the department. The candidate's complete file will be available to the provost upon his/her request.

C55 University procedures. Final authority in resolving conflicting opinions regarding reappointment is delegated to the provost.

C56 Notification of candidates. Candidates are informed of the college's recommendation prior to the time that the file and recommendations are forwarded to the provost.

Reappointment: Regular Non-Tenure Track Appointments

As of July 1, 2024, the procedures for non-reappointment of newly hired non-tenured or non-tenure track unclassified employees on regular appointments (as defined in PPM Chapter 4650, .050 for unclassified appointment types, including unclassified administrative personnel), have been updated and revised as per Kansas Board of Regents' policy. See Kansas State University Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM), Chapter 4050, Notice Procedure for Non-Reappointment effective July 1, 2024.

C60 Definition. Faculty members on regular non-tenure track appointments (see C10) are evaluated annually to determine whether or not they will be reappointed for another year. These faculty members must be explicitly informed in writing of a decision not to renew their appointments in accordance with The Standards of Notice of Non-Reappointment. (See C162.3.)

C61 Departments' charge to establish criteria and standards. See C30-C38: General Issues of Faculty Evaluation. Copies of these criteria and standards are available to faculty members in their departmental or unit offices. It must be clear that an effective instructor on a regular appointment may not be denied reappointment in order to avoid granting benefits.

C62 Candidate's responsibilities. The candidate compiles and submits documentation of his or her professional accomplishments in accordance with the criteria, standards, and guidelines established by the department.

C63.1 Departmental procedures. The department head/chair is responsible to make the candidate's file available to the department faculty members who are eligible to make recommendations. The department head/chair is advised by the eligible faculty members of the department regarding the qualifications of the candidate for reappointment. Any member of the eligible faculty may, prior to the submission of any recommendations to the department head/chair, request that a candidate meet with the eligible faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the record of accomplishment submitted by that candidate.

C63.2 Comments may be solicited from other faculty members and department heads/chairs in the college or university. In the case of extension faculty members or faculty members whose primary responsibilities are Directed Service (e.g., librarians and clinicians), the comments of various clientele served may be solicited as part of the evaluation for reappointment.

C63.3 The department head/chair will provide a letter which includes his/her recommendation and the rationale for the recommendation, redacted comments to protect anonymity, and the faculty vote to the candidate. The letter will become part of the candidate’s reappointment file. This letter along with, all recommendations and non-redacted written comments of the department's eligible faculty members and the candidate's complete file are also forwarded to the dean.

C64 College procedures. The dean, on behalf of the college, forwards a written recommendation and accompanying explanation to the provost, along with the candidate's complete file, the recommendations of the department head/chair, and the majority recommendation and any written comments (unedited) of the faculty members in the department.

C65 University procedures. Final authority in resolving conflicting opinions regarding reappointment is delegated to the provost.

C66 Notification of candidates. Candidates are informed of the college's recommendation prior to the time that the file and recommendations are forwarded to the provost.

Tenure

C70 Definition. Tenure is a continuous appointment that can be terminated only in unusual circumstances and then only after due process has been accorded the individual in question. See Appendix C for a discussion of the AAUP-AAC 1940 Statement of Academic Freedom and Tenure.

Regents' Tenure Policy

C71 The Board of Regents adopted on April 18, 1947, the 1940 AAUP principles governing tenure of faculty members. (At Kansas State University, the term teacher as used in the following text is interpreted to refer to any member of the faculty.)

C72 Section A: After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have permanent or continuous tenure, and their services should be terminated only for adequate cause, except in the cases of retirement for age, program or unit discontinuance, or under extraordinary circumstances because of financial exigencies. (Kansas does not have a mandatory retirement age for state employees. State law prescribes that all appointments not under the State Civil Service shall expire with the end of the fiscal year on June 30. However, unless previous notice has been given, all regular appointments of full-time faculty members are automatically renewed.)

C73 Section B: In the interpretation of the principles contained in Section A of this resolution, the following is approved by the Regents:

The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the appointment is consummated.

Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank, the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the provision that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more institutions, a person is to be appointed as a faculty member at Kansas State University, it may be agreed in writing that his/her new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though thereby the person's total probationary period in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven years; except, when the interest of both parties may best be served by mutual agreement at the time of the initial employment, Kansas State University may agree to allow for more than four years of probationary service provided the probationary period at Kansas State University does not exceed seven years. Notices should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the probationary period, if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the expiration of that period. (See AAUP's Standards of Notice of Non-Reappointment, Appendix A.)

C74 During the probationary period a teacher has the academic freedom that all other members of the faculty have.

C75 Termination for cause of a continuous appointment or dismissal for cause previous to the expiration of a term appointment shall, upon request of the faculty member, be considered by the Grievance Chair and/or Panel, which will make recommendations to the administration. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges against him/her and should have the opportunity to be heard in his/her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon his/her case. He/she should be permitted to have an advisor of his/her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from his/her own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal whether or not there is continuation in their duties at the institution. (At Kansas State University, graduate assistants are not considered faculty and, as such, formal grievance procedures for faculty do not apply to disputes regarding graduate assistants’ performance. See C39.1 and the Foreword to the University Handbook.)

C76 Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should be demonstrably bona fide.

C77 Within this general policy Kansas State University may make such operating regulations as it deems necessary, subject to the approval of the Board of Regents.

C78 Amendments to the above policy have been made as follows: Tenure may be acquired only by the members of the Kansas State University faculty who are on tenure track appointments, with the rank of assistant professor or higher. (This amendment applies only to those appointed on or after July 1, 1960.)

Decisions of the president shall be final and are not subject to further administrative review by any officer or committee of the institution or by the Board of Regents. Any tenure recommendation approved by the Board of Regents shall be limited to tenure for the recommended individual at the institution consistent with the tenure policies of that institution.

Kansas State University policy additions to Regents’ Tenure Policy:

The following additional details concerning tenure were adopted by Kansas State University from the AAUP Advisory Letter No.13 (AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1964).

C80.1 The duration of the probationary period relative to tenure varies with rank and experience. In its approach to the probationary period and to the award of continuous tenure, the university seeks to follow the spirit of the AAUP Advisory Letter No.13 (AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1964) as explained in the understanding of the probationary period:

C80.2 "The beginning faculty member is serving a kind of internship . . . and . . . he/she may not always be the best judge of his/her own effectiveness. An occasional word of caution, advice, or encouragement from experienced colleagues can therefore be very salutary. If the time comes that the department, division, and administration conclude that his/her connection with the institution should be severed, we would say that responsible officials of the institution should feel completely free to explain to him/her the basis of their decision. We could not agree, however, that if reasons are given for the non-reappointment the institution assumes a burden of demonstrating the validity of its reasons. To be sure, the faculty member may question whatever reasons are given him/her. But unlike the tenured teacher, he/she does not as probationer have what can be considered a claim to his/her position, and it would thus seem unreasonable to compel the institution to account for this exercise of its prerogative, much less carry the burden of justifying its decision.

C80.3

"These remarks are made, I am sure you understand, on the assumption that the faculty member has had an appropriate evaluation by his/her colleagues and that he/she is not being given notice for reasons which violate his/her academic freedom. . . .I think I must say further that our purpose is to permit the institution, within the limits of academic freedom, the utmost latitude in determining who will be retained for tenure appointments. Because the granting of tenure is tantamount to a lifetime commitment, we feel that the institution should be left without a reasonable doubt as to the faculty member's qualifications for tenure before it reaches a favorable decision" (AAUP Advisory Letter No.13, AAUP Bulletin, Spring 1964).

Other Considerations

C82.1 The Probationary period. Prior to being considered for tenure at Kansas State University, a faculty member is annually appointed during an extended probationary period to assess the candidate's ability to contribute to the expertise expected of the University's faculty as defined by his/her unit's criteria, standards, and guidelines (see C31.1-C31.3).

C82.2 Assistant professor. Tenure is not granted below the rank of associate professor (effective July, 1994) except in special circumstances approved by the provost. For persons appointed at the rank of assistant professor, the maximum probationary period for gaining tenure and promotion to associate professor consists of six (6) regular annual appointments at Kansas State University at a probationary rank. In these cases, decisions of tenure must be made before or during the sixth year of probationary service. Candidates not approved for tenure during the sixth year of service will be notified by the appropriate dean that the seventh year of service will constitute the terminal year of appointment.

C82.3 Associate professor and professor. For persons appointed at the rank of associate professor or professor, the maximum probationary period for gaining tenure consists of five (5) regular annual appointments at Kansas State University at probationary ranks. Tenure decisions must be made before or during the fifth year of probationary service. Candidates not approved for tenure during the fifth year of service will be notified by the appropriate dean that the sixth year of service will constitute the terminal year of appointment.

C82.4 Faculty members on probationary appointments who have met the criteria and standards for tenure prior to the above maximum times may be granted early tenure. Because candidates may be considered for tenure at any time during their probationary period, no time credit shall be granted for service prior to employment at Kansas State University.

C83.1 Faculty members on probationary, tenure-track positions may request a one year delay of the tenure clock. Such a delay shall be granted to a faculty member who is responsible for the care of a child five years of age or younger, or who adopts a child of any age. Requests for a delay in the tenure clock for the above noted reasons shall be made to the department or unit head who will forward the request to the dean. The dean will forward the request to the provost who will grant the one year delay.

C83.2 Faculty members on probationary, tenure-track positions may request a one-year delay of the tenure clock (1) for a serious health condition: that is an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential treatment facility, or continuing treatment by a health care provider or (2) for the care of a household member, a parent, or a sibling with a serious health condition: that is an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential treatment facility, or continuing treatment by a health care provider. Common illness, minor injuries, or minor surgeries that are not life threatening are excluded. Requests for a delay in the tenure clock for the above noted reasons shall be made to the department or unit head who will forward the request along with her/his recommendation to the dean. The dean will forward the request along with his/her recommendation and the recommendation of the department or unit head to the provost, with whom the final decision rests.

C83.3 Faculty members on probationary, tenure-track positions may request a one-year delay of the tenure clock when for programmatic reasons there is a substantial change in the probationary faculty member's assigned area(s) of responsibilities. Requests for a delay in the tenure clock shall be made to the department/unit head/chair who will present the request to the tenured faculty in the department/unit for consideration. The head/chair will forward the request along with her/his recommendation and the vote of the tenured faculty plus unedited faculty comments to the dean. The dean will forward the request along with his/her recommendation, the recommendation of the department/unit head/chair, and the faculty vote with unedited comments to the provost, with whom the final decision rests.

C83.4 If a delay in the tenure clock is granted prior to the mid-probationary review, the review will take place one year later than would have occurred without such a delay. An individual granted a delay of the tenure clock shall not be subject to additional scholarship, teaching, or service requirements above and beyond those normally required.

C83.5 A request for delay of the tenure clock must be made within a reasonable amount of time from the date of the event which would show cause for a delay of the tenure clock.

C83.6 Delay of the tenure clock during the probationary period is limited to two one-year delays.

C84 Years credited to probationary period. For the purposes of counting regular annual appointments as part of the probationary period, a year is credited if the individual is on a full-time (ten-tenths) appointment for at least eight months of an academic year or is on an appointment of nine-tenths or more for the entire academic year, or receives no less than eight-ninths of his or her salary for the academic year. Individuals appointed at lesser levels do not count that year a part of the probationary period. The summer session is not counted for those on academic year (nine-month) appointments.

General Guidelines for Tenure

C90 Purpose of tenure. The university uses a selective process in awarding tenure to secure a faculty of the highest possible caliber. To be tenured, faculty members must be experts in their chosen fields, and must have full academic freedom in pursuit of ideas or inquiries without fear of censure or retribution.

C91 Evaluation and feedback. The university uses an extended probationary period to provide opportunity to assess a candidate's ability to contribute to the expertise and the versatility expected of the faculty at Kansas State University. Evaluation is conducted annually and feedback provided in a timely manner to each faculty member on a probationary appointment. See C50.1.

C92.1 Mid-probationary review. A formal review of a probationary faculty member is conducted midway through the probationary period.

Unless otherwise stated in the candidate's contract, the mid-probationary review shall take place during the third year of appointment. This review provides the faculty member with substantive feedback from faculty colleagues and administrators regarding his or her accomplishments relative to departmental tenure criteria. Neither a positive nor negative mid-probationary review determines the outcome of the tenure review process.

C92.2 Procedures for the mid-probationary review are similar to procedures for the tenure review and are established by the departmental faculty in consultation with the department head/chair and the dean. The department head/chair is responsible for making the candidate's mid-probationary review file available to the tenured faculty members in the department at least fourteen calendar days prior to a meeting to discuss the candidate's progress. A cumulative record of written recommendations and accompanying explanations forwarded to the candidate from previous reappointment meetings, and any comments from individuals outside the department relevant to the assessment of the candidate's performance will also be made available to the eligible tenured faculty. The department head/chair may discuss the review and assessment of the tenured faculty members in the department with the dean, and shall provide a letter of assessment to the candidate, including a summary of faculty comments and suggestions. (See C35 regarding confidentiality of peer evaluations). This letter of assessment and the faculty report will become a part of the candidate's reappointment and mid-probationary review file. The department head/chair will discuss the review and assessment with the candidate. After receiving the assessment, the candidate has the right to submit a written response for the file.

C92.3 Comments also may be solicited from students, and other relevant faculty members in the college or university, and from outside reviewers. In the case of K-State Research and Extension faculty members or faculty members whose primary responsibility is directed service (e.g., librarians and clinicians), the comments of various clientele served may be solicited as part of the evaluation for mid-probationary review.

C92.4 College procedures. The candidate's mid-probationary review file as well as other materials specified in C92.2, and a copy of the departmental criteria and standards will be forwarded to the college advisory committee. C153.1 is incorporated herein by reference as the evaluation procedure to be followed by the college advisory committee. The dean will provide a letter of assessment to the candidate that includes a summary of recommendations from the college advisory committee.

C93 Final tenure recommendations. The provost is responsible for making final tenure recommendations to the president.

Standards for Tenure

C100.1 General principles. There can be no simple list of accomplishments that, when achieved, guarantee that a faculty member will obtain tenure. Instead, tenure is granted. This action, taken by the Kansas Board of Regents, is based on the assessment by the tenured faculty of the university that a candidate has made outstanding contributions in appropriate academic endeavors. By granting tenure only to such individuals, the continued excellence of the university is ensured.

C100.2 A reappointment conferring tenure is made after favorable consideration of the qualifications and accomplishments of the candidate relative to departmental tenure criteria.

C100.3 Tenure is neither a right accorded to every faculty member nor is tenure granted simply as a result of a candidate's routinely meeting assigned duties with a record free of notable deficiencies.

C100.4 The decision to grant or not grant tenure must not be based on the number or percentage of faculty members who already have been granted tenure.

C102 Departments' charge to establish criteria and standards. See C30-C38: General Issues of Faculty Evaluation. Copies of the criteria and standards for tenure are available to faculty in their departmental documents.

Procedures for Tenure Evaluation

C110 Timing. Recommendations for tenure are considered annually. Faculty members in the final year of probation will be automatically reviewed for tenure unless the faculty member resigns. A faculty member may request an early tenure review. Ordinarily, this is done after consultation with the department head/chair and the tenured faculty members in the department.

C111 Candidate's responsibilities. The candidate compiles and submits a file that documents her or his professional accomplishments in accordance with the criteria, standards, and guidelines established by the department.

C112.1 Departmental procedures. The department head/chair is advised by the eligible tenured faculty members of the department regarding the qualifications of the candidate for tenure. The department head/chair is responsible for making the candidate's file and departmental tenure criteria documents available to eligible tenured faculty members in the department at least fourteen calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting date to discuss the candidate s petition. A cumulative record of recommendations from the reappointment and mid-probationary review meetings, and any outside reviews that have been solicited by the department head/chair will also be made available to the eligible tenured faculty. (See also Secs. C35, C36.1, C36.2, C37 and C38).

C112.2 When appropriate, comments are solicited from students and from other faculty members and department heads/chairs in the college or university. Outside reviewers (see C36.1) recognized as leaders in the candidate's discipline or profession may be asked to advise. When outside reviewers are used, an equal number are usually selected by the candidate and the department head/chair.

C112.3 Eligible tenured faculty members will individually review the candidate's file, considering the department's criteria, standards, and guidelines for tenure, and will then meet to discuss the candidate's petition. All recommendations and written comments of eligible departmental faculty are forwarded to the department head/chair.

C112.4 Any member of the eligible faculty may, prior to the submission of any recommendations to the department head/chair, request that the candidate meet with the eligible tenured faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the record of accomplishment submitted by the candidate.

C112.5 The department head/chair will provide a letter which includes his/her recommendation, the rationale for the recommendation, redacted comments to protect anonymity, and the faculty vote to the candidate. The letter will become part of the candidate’s reappointment file. This letter along with, all recommendations and non-redacted written comments of the department's eligible tenured faculty members and the candidate's complete file are also forwarded to the dean.

C113.1 College Procedures. Each college will have an advisory committee to advise the dean on candidates proposed for tenure and/or promotion. The faculty, dean, and provost must approve the composition, procedures for selection of college advisory committee members, and the procedures for the operation of the college advisory committee (see C113.2). The composition, procedures for selection of the college advisory committee, and the procedures for operation of the college advisory committee may be reviewed any year at the request of the faculty, dean or the provost, and must be reviewed at least once every five years.

C113.2 A copy of the candidate's file and the departmental tenure criteria documents will be forwarded to the college advisory committee. The committee's specific charge is to assure that all applicable procedures have been followed and that the department/unit in arriving at a recommendation did so by fairly applying established criteria, standards, and guidelines for tenure (see C30.1-C31.4, C32.1-C38). The committee, in advising the dean, will base its recommendation exclusively on a comparison of the candidate's credentials with the criteria, standards, and guidelines of the candidate's department. The committee will report its findings in writing to the dean. The committee's report must specifically contain a statement as to whether or not all applicable procedures were followed. The report must also explain the rationale behind the committee's recommendation by providing a detailed evaluation of the candidate's credentials with regard to how the candidate meets or fails to meet the specific criteria, standards, and/or guidelines of the candidate's department/unit. A minority committee report is required when the committee's recommendation is not unanimous.

C113.3 The dean, after consulting with the department head/chair and the college advisory committee and after discussing his or her recommendations with the head/chair and the committee, will submit his or her written recommendation to the Deans Council accompanied by the recommendations and unedited written comments of the department head/chair, the departmental faculty, and the college advisory committee, and the departmental tenure criteria documents, no sooner than seven calendar days following notification to the candidate (see C113.4). The dean's recommendation and the recommendation of the college advisory committee will be copied to the department head/chair and the candidate.

C113.4 Notification to candidates. Candidates are informed of the college's recommendations (see C113.3) prior to the time that the file and recommendations are forwarded to the Deans Council. Candidates may withdraw from further consideration for tenure by submitting to the dean a written request for withdrawal. This must be done within seven calendar days following notification of the college's recommendation. Withdrawal by a candidate who is in the final year of the probationary period may be done only by formal resignation effective at the end of the next academic year.

C114.1 University tenure evaluation procedures. The Deans Council meeting will be chaired by the senior dean (longest serving), and the provost will not be a party to the discussions. The dean of the candidate's college will abstain from voting when the council votes on the candidate, and will notify the candidate and the candidate's department head/chair of the council's vote. If the finding of the Deans Council differs from those of the department and/or the college dean, written justification must be provided as to how the candidate's credentials meet or fail to meet the departmental criteria, standards, and/or guidelines, to the candidate, dean of the candidate's college, and the department head/chair.

C114.2 If the finding of the Deans Council is to not grant tenure, the candidate may appeal this decision to the provost within a period of fourteen calendar days of receiving notification. If the provost concurs with the finding of the Deans Council to not grant tenure, the candidate may file a grievance with the Grievance Chair (see Appendix G).

C114.3 If the finding of the Deans Council is to grant tenure, the case is then reviewed by the provost. If the provost does not concur with the finding of the Deans Council, then the provost will offer to arrange a meeting with the candidate, the senior dean, and a tenured faculty moderator mutually acceptable to the provost and the candidate, within a period of fourteen calendar days of notification of provost's decision. If no agreement is reached, then the provost will provide the candidate, the department head/chair, the dean of the candidate's college, and the Deans Council, written reasons for the decision. At that point, the candidate has the option to file a grievance with the Grievance Chair.

C114.4 The provost will send his or her recommendation of the cases that are to be granted tenure to the president. Decisions to deny tenure are not forwarded to the president. When the provost's recommendation disagrees with that of the Deans Council, the provost will provide a written explanation of her or his judgment to the Deans Council, the dean, the department head/chair, and the candidate.

C115 The president has final authority for granting tenure. Candidates are notified of the university's action when the provost's recommendation to grant tenure are forwarded to the president.

C116.1 Interdisciplinary program faculty. Faculty members with appointments in interdisciplinary programs will be evaluated for tenure in their disciplinary departments in which the candidate holds majority appointment. The department head/chair also must solicit input from the interdisciplinary program director as well as the eligible tenured faculty members in the interdisciplinary program. Departmental, college and university procedures as outlined in C110 to C115 shall be followed. A copy of the department head’s/chair's recommendation shall be provided to the interdisciplinary program director.

C116.2 In the rare case when an appropriate disciplinary department cannot be designated at the time of appointment, recommendations for tenure may come from the formally designated eligible tenured faculty members within the interdisciplinary program, provided that prior to the appointment the eligible tenured faculty of the interdisciplinary program agree to provide this recommendation, and that the appointment was approved by the dean(s) of the appropriate college(s) and provost. The terms of the faculty appointment must be presented in writing and agreed to by the appointee. Copies of the conditions for the appointment will be filed with the interdisciplinary program director, respective dean(s) and provost.

Promotion in Rank

C120 Definition. Faculty members may expect to advance through the academic ranks on the basis of demonstrated individual merit in relation to their association with the university's mission and with their own disciplines. Each higher rank demands a higher level of accomplishment.

C120.1 Promotion is based upon an individual's achievements related to the specific criteria, standards, and guidelines developed by departmental faculty members in consultation with the department head and the appropriate dean.

C120.2 Promotion to assistant professor reflects an acceptable level of achievement and potential for excellence. Promotion to associate professor rests on substantial professional contributions that reflect excellence in teaching, research and other creative endeavor, directed service, or extension. Promotion to professor is based on attainment of excellence in the assigned responsibilities of the faculty member and recognition of excellence by all appropriate constituencies.

General Guidelines for Promotion in Rank

C130 Terminal degree requirements. A doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree is a prerequisite for holding the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. The provost maintains a list of appropriate terminal degrees as recommended by the deans. There may be special cases in which accomplishments or experience other than the terminal degree will allow promotion to one of the professorial ranks. Such situations will be considered on an individual basis.

C131 Time in rank. Although no explicit time in rank is required for promotion, the median time for promotion at Kansas State University has been approximately six years. Promotion may be granted earlier when the faculty member's cumulative performance at rank clearly meets the standards for promotion.

C132 Promotion-related salary increases. Promotion in academic rank is recognition by the university community of substantial achievement which deserves reward. Promotion related increases in salary will be awarded at the university level and are in addition to merit salary increase based on yearly evaluations. Salary increases for promotion to associate professor and full professor will be a minimum of 15% of the average salary of all university faculty members for the year preceding promotion. Funds for these increases are to be from the unclassified salary adjustment pool for faculty members and academic administrators. In years when no salary adjustment pool exists, the funds will come from the same segment of the base budget and will be repaid from the next readjustment pool.

Standards for Promotion in Rank

C140 General principles. Successful candidates for promotion will demonstrate superior professional accomplishment and excellence in the performance of their assigned duties. The assessment of a faculty member's performance upon which a recommendation regarding promotion will be based must reflect the professional expectations conveyed during annual evaluations.

C141 Departments' charge to establish criteria and standards. See C30-C38: General issues of faculty evaluation. Copies of the standards for promotion are available to faculty members in their departmental documents.

Procedures for Evaluation Related to Promotion in Rank

C150 Timing. Recommendations concerning promotion are considered annually. Department heads/chairs are expected to notify faculty members regarding their progress toward or readiness for promotion review.

C151 Candidate’s responsibilities. A faculty member, after consultation with the department head/chair or appropriate departmental faculty, may request a review for promotion. The candidate compiles and submits a file that documents his or her professional accomplishments in accordance with the criteria, standards, and guidelines established by the department (see C30.4).

C152.1 Departmental procedures. Faculty members of the department who hold a rank equal to or higher than the rank being sought by the candidate are eligible to advise the department head/chair regarding the qualifications of the candidate for promotion. Department heads/chairs are responsible for making the candidate’s promotion file and the departmental promotion criteria documents available to the eligible faculty members at least fourteen calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting date to discuss the candidate's petition. The promotion file shall in the main provide a compilation of the candidate's professional accomplishments during tenure in the current rank, and comments from other individuals relevant to the assessment of the candidate's performance (see C152.2).

C152.2 When appropriate, comments are solicited from appropriate students and alumni, and from other faculty members and department heads/chairs in the college or University. Outside reviewers (see C36.1) recognized as scholars or leaders in the candidate's discipline or profession may be asked to advise. When outside reviewers are used, an equal number are usually selected by the candidate and the department head/chair.

C152.3 Eligible faculty members individually review the candidate’s file, considering the department's criteria, standards, and guidelines for promotion, and then meet to discuss the candidate's petition. All recommendations and written comments of eligible departmental faculty are forwarded to the department head/chair.

C152.4 Any member of the eligible faculty may, prior to the submission of any recommendations to the department head/chair, request that a candidate meet with the eligible tenured faculty to discuss, for purposes of clarification, the record of accomplishment submitted by that candidate.

C152.5 The department head/chair will provide a letter which includes his/her recommendation, the rationale for the recommendation, redacted comments to protect anonymity, and the faculty vote to the candidate. The letter will become part of the candidate’s promotion file. This letter along with, all recommendations and non-redacted written comments of the department's eligible tenured faculty members and the candidate's complete file are also forwarded to the dean.

C153.1 College procedures. Each college will have an advisory committee to advise the dean on candidates proposed for promotion and/or tenure. The college faculty, dean, and provost must approve the composition, procedures for selection of college advisory committee members, and the procedures for the operation of the college advisory committee (see C153.2). The composition, procedures for selection of the college advisory committee, and the procedures for operation of the college advisory committee may be reviewed any year at the request of the faculty, dean or the provost, and must be reviewed at least once every five years.

C153.2 A copy of the candidate’s file and the departmental promotion criteria documents will be forwarded to the college advisory committee. The committee's specific charge is to assure that all applicable procedures have been followed and that the department/unit in arriving at a recommendation did so by fairly applying established criteria, standards, and guidelines that are specific for promotion to the appropriate rank (see C30.1-C31.4, C32.1-C38, and C141). The committee, in advising the dean, will base its recommendation exclusively on a comparison of the candidate’s credentials with the criteria, standards, and guidelines of the candidate’s department. The committee will report its findings in writing to the Dean. The committee’s report must specifically contain a statement as to whether or not all applicable procedures were followed. The report must also explain the rationale behind the committee's recommendation by providing a detailed evaluation of the candidate's credentials with regard to how the candidate meets or fails to meet the specific criteria, standards, and/or guidelines for promotion to the petitioned rank in the candidate's department/unit. A minority committee report is required when the committee's recommendation is not unanimous.

C153.3 The dean, after consultation and discussion with the department head/chair and college advisory committee, will submit his or her recommendation to the Deans Council (subject to C153.4) accompanied by the recommendations and unedited written comments of the department head/chair, the departmental faculty, and the college advisory committee, and the departmental promotion criteria documents, seven calendar days after notification to the candidate (see 153.4). The recommendation of the dean and the recommendation of the college advisory committee will be copied to the department head/chair and the candidate.

C153.4 Notification to candidates. Candidates are informed of the college's recommendations prior to the time the file and recommendations are forwarded to the Deans Council. Candidates may withdraw from further consideration for promotion by submitting to the dean a written request for withdrawal. This must be done within seven calendar days following notification of the college's recommendation, and in this case the candidate's petition for promotion is not forwarded to the Deans Council.

C154.1 University promotion evaluation procedures. The Deans Council meeting will be chaired by the senior dean (longest serving), and the provost will not be a party to the discussions. The dean of the candidate’s college will abstain from voting when the Council votes on the candidate, and will notify the candidate and the candidate s department head/chair of the Council's vote. If the finding of the Deans Council differs from those of the department and/or college dean, written justification must be provided to the candidate, dean of the candidate s college, and the department head/chair.

C154.2 If the finding of the Deans Council is to not grant promotion, the candidate may appeal this decision to the provost within a period of fourteen calendar days of receiving written notification. If the provost concurs with the finding of the Deans Council to not grant promotion, the candidate then has the option to file a grievance with the Grievance Chair.

C154.3 If the finding of the Deans Council is to grant promotion, the case is then reviewed by the provost. If the provost does not concur with the finding of the Deans Council, then the provost will offer to hold a meeting with the candidate, the senior dean (longest serving), and a tenured faculty moderator mutually acceptable to the provost and the candidate, within a period of fourteen calendar days of notification of provost's decision. If no agreement is reached, then the provost will provide the candidate, the department head/chair, and the dean of the candidate's college, and the Deans Council, written reasons for the decision. At that point, the candidate has the option to file a grievance with the Grievance Chair.

C154.4 The provost will send his or her recommendation of the cases that are to be granted promotion to the president. Decisions to deny promotion are not forwarded to the president. When the provost's recommendation disagrees with that of the Deans Council, the provost will provide a written explanation of her or his judgment to the Deans Council, the dean, the department head/chair, and the candidate.

C155 The president has the final authority for granting promotion. Candidates are to be notified when the provost's recommendation to grant promotions is approved by the president.

C156.1 Interdisciplinary faculty. A tenured faculty member with appointment in an interdisciplinary unit will be evaluated for promotion by the unit in which the candidate is tenured. An untenured faculty member with an appointment in an interdisciplinary unit will be evaluated for tenure and promotion by the unit in which the candidate holds a majority appointment. The department head/chair also must solicit input from the interdisciplinary program director as well as the eligible tenured faculty members in the interdisciplinary program. Departmental, college, and university procedures as outlined in C152, C153, and C154 shall be followed. A copy of the department head’s/chair's recommendation shall be provided to the interdisciplinary program director.

C156.2 In the rare case when an appropriate disciplinary department cannot be designated at the time of appointment, recommendations for promotion may come from the formally designated eligible tenured faculty members within the interdisciplinary program, provided that prior to the appointment the eligible tenured faculty of the interdisciplinary program agree to provide this recommendation, and that the appointment was approved by the dean(s) of the appropriate college(s) and provost. The terms of the faculty appointment must be presented in writing and agreed to by the appointee. Copies of the conditions for the appointment shall be filed with the interdisciplinary program director, respective dean(s) and provost.

C157 Dean's Evaluation Procedures. Five year comprehensive review

C157.1 During the fifth year of the dean’s tenure, the provost will request that the dean write a self-assessment of his/her activities for the past five years. In addition, the provost will write a brief summary of the university administration’s expectations under which the dean has been operating. These expectations will be those agreed upon by the provost and the dean.

C157.2 The formal process of the evaluation will be initiated by a letter from the provost to the faculty and unclassified professionals of the college and other personnel designated to provide input (e.g., students, classified staff, constituent groups, etc.). This letter will initiate the formal process of the evaluation, explain the process, state that an opportunity to provide feedback will be forthcoming, and note that an advisory committee will be appointed. A summary of the university administrative expectations under which the dean has been operating will be made available to respondents.

C157.3 The provost will select and appoint an advisory committee. The advisory committee selection process will involve consultation with the dean, elected faculty senators, and a faculty council if the college has one. The committee will represent each academic discipline or department, and reflect the gender and race diversity of the college/unit to the extent practicable. As a general practice, only tenured faculty and no more than one department head will serve on the advisory committee. With the approval of the provost, the committee membership may be expanded by the addition of representatives from non-faculty groups who are served by the college (including students, unclassified professionals, classified staff, or clients of the college). The announcement of the composition of the committee will be made after the survey results have been collected.

C157.4 The provost will identify five references, external to the college, who have knowledge of the dean's work in fund raising and alumni/constituent relations. The references will be contacted by the provost and asked to provide a written summary of the dean's performance as Dean at Kansas State University. Some of these references will be in higher education, although others may be in related professional disciplines. Both the dean and the advisory committee may provide suggested references to the provost, according to a timeline established by the provost.

Development and distribution of the survey

C157.5 The template for the dean’s evaluation survey should be consistent across the university. The dean and advisory committee may propose relevant questions to be added to the survey instrument to better fit the specific dean being evaluated. The provost will have the final approval of the questions to be included in the survey instrument that is administered for a specific dean. The survey instrument, collection of data, and analysis of data will protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents. The survey instrument will include a clear statement that the summary of the numerical data and comments will be shared with the dean. The provost will empower the Office of Planning and Analysis or other appropriate unit to distribute the materials for confidential feedback. The method shall provide opportunity for input on performance relative to established missions and goals, and focus on the overall effectiveness of and confidence in the dean. The method used to collect feedback shall be private and confidential, and the feedback shall be anonymous to the dean being reviewed. However, absolute confidentiality and anonymity cannot be guaranteed, such as when safety, security or due process requires disclosure. The Office of Planning and Analysis or the other appropriate unit will collect the results. Individuals also may choose to use other reasonable methods to provide confidential feedback to the provost.

C157.6 Written comments will be compiled, protecting respondent confidentiality. Prior to being finalized, the provost will review and retain all written comments. Comments unrelated to the professional evaluation of the dean will not be included in the results, but will be subject to inquiry by the provost at his or her discretion. The results will be summarized by the Office of Planning and Analysis or other appropriate unit.

Responsibilities of the Advisory Committee

C157.7 The provost will charge the advisory committee and provide a timeline for reviewing the data and preparing the report and recommendations. Each advisory committee member will receive a copy of the final composite of the results, a copy of each letter of reference, the summary of the expectations of the university administration under which the dean has been operating, the self-assessment by the dean, including goals and objectives provided to the provost in previous years, and evaluation materials from other relevant groups identified in Section C157.3.

C157.8 The advisory committee will write a draft report for the provost, which summarizes strengths, weaknesses, and issues of substance which need to be addressed. A draft copy of this report will be provided to the dean along with a copy of the final composite of the results and written comments. Prior to the committee drafting its final report to the provost, the dean will have an opportunity to respond to the committee in writing to clarify misconceptions and provide further relevant information. After due consideration of any responses from the dean, the committee will produce a final copy of the report for the provost with an overall recommendation for appointment or non-reappointment to a subsequent five-year term and will forward any response from the dean to the provost. The final report shall be signed by all committee members including the chair allowing for special provisions for missing signatures when a committee member is unavailable to sign. In the case that a minority report is deemed necessary, the report and its content should be disclosed to all committee members including the chair. The minority report shall be submitted at the same time as the final report. A separate letter from the committee to the provost will contain the number of votes of the advisory committee members for or against the reappointment of the dean. No identification of any individual votes will be included. Following the receipt of the report and prior to the final determination by the provost as to reappointment or non-reappointment, the advisory committee will have the opportunity to meet with the provost, discuss the survey results, and the vote of the committee on the recommendation.

C157.9 Absolute confidentiality is expected from the committee members concerning all evaluation materials, committee deliberations, and final recommendations. Confidentiality for committee members is a matter of both ethics and policy.

C157.10 The committee’s recommendations are advisory in nature. The final decision resides with the provost subject to the approval of the president. If the provost's decision as to reappointment is contrary to a recommendation from a majority of the committee, he or she will meet with the committee members to explain the reasons for not accepting the committee’s recommendations.

C157.11 The provost will meet with the faculty of the college to announce the outcome and discuss relevant issues.

Mid-appointment feedback

C158.1 In the second or third year of a dean's initial appointment, the dean may elect to initiate a feedback mechanism. The Office of Planning and Analysis may serve as a resource to assist in the process.

C158.2 The intent of the feedback is to reinforce positive endeavors of the college and/or dean, to help clarify the mission and direction of the college, to help clarify the college's role in the university and the relationships with external support or professional organizations, to help identify areas where the dean may want to focus more attention, and to assist the dean in self-assessment.

C158.3 At the option of the dean he or she may choose to share the results of the feedback with the provost and/or selected faculty members.

Administrative Assignments and Five-Year Comprehensive Reviews

C159.1 The term of office of department/unit heads, associate deans, and assistant deans holding faculty rank, and having supervisory or budgetary authority (referred to as academic administrators for purposes of clarity) will be specifically determined at the time of the administrative assignment, but shall not exceed five years. Individuals in these positions serve at the pleasure of the dean who determines whether annual reappointment is appropriate. These academic administrators are eligible for renewal of the administrative assignment period of up to five years. To continue in the administrative assignment, the administrator should have the support of the majority of all personnel who report to and work closely with the administrator as defined in C159.3.

C159.2 The dean shall consider the reappointment of an administrative assignment with supervisory or budgetary authority to an additional term only after the establishment of an advisory council and a review.

C159.3 During the final year of the academic administrator’s term, the dean will send a letter to all individuals who work under the supervision of this academic administrator. This letter will initiate the formal process of the evaluation, explain the process, state that an opportunity to provide feedback will be forthcoming, and note that an advisory committee will be appointed. The dean will provide a summary of the academic administrator’s job expectations to those providing input. The dean and the academic administrator will confer and reach agreement on the job summary. Potential respondents will include all faculty and staff, regardless of tenure status or contract type, within the group being served. If requested by the academic administrator, and agreed to by the dean, evaluation materials can be collected from other groups (e.g., students, constituent groups, etc.).

The dean of the college will request that the academic administrator write a self-assessment of their activities since initial administrative assignment or last re-appointment.

C159.4 To solicit and document the feedback of the group served, the Office of Planning and Analysis or another group (e.g., administrative support staff) empowered by the dean, shall develop a secure survey instrument that protects the privacy and confidentiality of respondents. The survey shall provide for narrative comments, ratings of specific performance areas listed on the self-evaluation, unit-specific performance areas, and a final question/statement addressing the possibility of reappointment in the administrative assignment. The method used to collect the feedback shall be private and confidential, and the feedback shall be anonymous to the individual being reviewed. However, absolute confidentiality and anonymity cannot be guaranteed, such as when safety, security or due process requires disclosure. The Office of Planning and Analysis or other appropriate group will collect the results. Individuals also may choose to use other methods for providing confidential feedback to the supervisor of the individual being reviewed.

C159.5 After the materials have been administered, the dean will request that the group served recommend a list of faculty and staff to serve on the academic administrator’s reappointment advisory committee. The dean will review the list, then select a representative committee. Students, alumni, and representatives of other university-related groups may also be named as members of the reappointment advisory committee.

C159.6 The reappointment advisory committee shall keep the faculty and staff of the group being served regularly informed of the status of the review. The feedback results will be summarized by the administrative support staff. Written comments will be transcribed and compiled, protecting respondent confidentiality. The data will be compiled and presented so that the summary and other statistics will be standard outputs, along with an anonymous listing of the narrative comments. Comments unrelated to the professional evaluation of the administrator will not be included in the results, but will be subject to inquiry by the dean at their discretion. A summary of respondents’ input will be provided to the committee for its report to the dean.

C159.7 The reappointment advisory committee will write a report to the dean, which summarizes strengths, weaknesses, and issues of substance that need to be addressed. The committee will make a recommendation for appointment or non-reappointment of the administrative assignment. A draft copy of this report will be provided to the academic administrator being reviewed. The academic administrator can, if they desire, respond to the committee in writing concerning the draft report. After due consideration of any responses, the committee will produce a final copy of the report and an advisory recommendation and will forward any responses from the academic administrator to the dean.

C159.8 Confidentiality is expected for the committee members concerning all evaluation materials, committee deliberations, and final recommendations. Confidentiality for committee members is a matter of both ethics and policy.

C159.9 To be reappointed, the administrator should have the support of the majority of all personnel who responded to the request for feedback, which shall consist of those who report to and work closely with the administrator as defined in C159.3, as well as the concurrence of the dean. The dean shall consider the advisory committee’s recommendation before reappointing an administrative assignment. If the dean makes a reappointment decision that is against the wishes of a majority of the faculty and staff, the dean will schedule a meeting with the group being served and the next higher-level administrator to give a rationale for the reappointment and an opportunity to respond to their decision.

C159.10 Those departments who elect a chair follow the departmental internal evaluation procedures.

Other Unclassified Professional Administrators

C159.11 Includes all directors and other unclassified professional department/unit administrators not specified in C159.1.

At least once every five years, the responsible dean, vice provost, vice president, provost or president, depending upon the department's/unit's reporting structure, will issue a request for input from individuals regarding the performance of their department/unit administrator(s). To solicit and document the feedback of the group served, the Office of Planning and Analysis or another group (e.g., the administrative support staff) shall develop a survey instrument that protects the privacy and confidentiality of respondents. The survey shall provide for narrative comments, ratings of specific performance areas listed on the self-evaluation, unit-specific performance areas, and a final question/statement addressing the suitability of reappointment. Examples of methods that may be used to protect the privacy and confidentiality of those submitting responses to five-year evaluation materials include electronic surveys or surveys submitted to a third party in Human Resources or the Planning and Analysis Office. The designated group will collect the results, and the feedback shall be anonymous to the individual being reviewed. However, absolute confidentiality and anonymity cannot be guaranteed, such as when safety, security or due process requires disclosure. Individuals also may choose to use other methods to provide confidential feedback to the supervisor of the individual being reviewed. These guidelines follow the unit/department head’s/chair’s review process outlined in C159.4.

Termination of Services

As of July 1, 2024, the procedures for non-reappointment of newly hired non-tenured or non-tenure track unclassified employees on regular appointments (as defined in PPM Chapter 4650, .050 for unclassified appointment types, including unclassified administrative personnel), have been updated and revised as per Kansas Board of Regents' policy. See Kansas State University Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM), Chapter 4050, Notice Procedure for Non-Reappointment effective July 1, 2024.

C160.1 General standards for non-reappointment. The Kansas Board of Regents has adopted The Standards of Notice of Non-Reappointment set forth by the American Association of University Professors in the autumn of 1964. (See Appendix A. Also see AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Appendix C.)

C160.2 Non-reappointment in the case of financial exigency should not be interpreted as a reflection on the quality of the individual faculty member's performance.

C160.3 The termination for cause of faculty on continuous appointments and non-tenured faculty, who have been appointed on contract for a specified term, before the expiration of that term, shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedure described in C75.

C161.1 Reasons for dismissing faculty and unclassified professionals. Any faculty member or unclassified professional may be recommended for dismissal for:

• Professional incompetence
• Misconduct or unethical behavior
• Persistent violation of university rules and/or policy
• Bona fide financial exigency (See C162.4 and Appendix B.)
• Program discontinuance (See C162.5 and Appendix K.)

C161.2 Tenured faculty members who are dismissed for reasons other than misconduct or unethical behavior, or financial exigency, shall be given written notice by the university 12 months in advance of their separation. Financial exigency has been broadly defined by the Kansas Board of Regents (Appendix B) with detailed procedures to be defined by each of the Regents' institutions.

C162.1 Dismissing faculty holding tenure. Termination of employment of a tenured faculty member, other than by voluntary resignation or retirement, is extremely rare. In such case the university upholds both the letter and the spirit of the tenure principle of the AAUP (Appendix C).

C162.2 Faculty members with tenure who are dismissed have a right to a formal hearing under the procedures stated in the Kansas Board of Regents policy on tenure (see C71-C78). In cases of dismissal for cause, the Procedure for Review of Dismissal of Tenured Faculty in Appendix M will be followed. In cases of dismissal for reasons of financial exigency the procedures in Appendix B will be followed. In cases of dismissal for reasons of program discontinuance, the procedures of Appendix K will be followed.

C162.3 For faculty members whose services are to be terminated before tenure is attained, written notice shall be given to them by the dean of their college, according to the standards and schedule specified in Appendix A.

C162.4 A formal plan to be used in the event financial exigency necessitates the dismissal of tenured faculty members is contained in Appendix B.

C162.5 A formal plan to be used in the event program discontinuance necessitates the dismissal of tenured faculty members is contained in Appendix K.

Continued Employment for Administrative Appointees

C170.1 Individuals may be appointed to regular appointments or to term appointments. A regular appointment is typically made when the need and the funds for the position are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. A regular appointment is made to a budgeted position. A term appointment is typically used when the need or funding for the position is finite and is for a specified term, usually not longer than one year. A term appointment carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the period stated in the contract. Term appointments can be made to either budgeted or non-budgeted positions.

As of July 1, 2024, the procedures for non-reappointment of newly hired non-tenured or non-tenure track unclassified employees on regular appointments (as defined in PPM Chapter 4650, .050 for unclassified appointment types, including unclassified administrative personnel), have been updated and revised as per Kansas Board of Regents' policy. See Kansas State University Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM), Chapter 4050, Notice Procedure for Non-Reappointment effective July 1, 2024.

C170.3 Persons holding regular or term unclassified professional appointments may be terminated without cause, provided that notice is given according to the schedule below. This notice is called notice of non-reappointment.

During the first year of service, the individual must be notified by March 1 if he/she will not be reappointed for the next fiscal year. During the second year, notification of the non-reappointment for the next fiscal year must be made by December 15. Thereafter, the individual must be provided 12 months' notice if he/she will not be reappointed. (The first year of service ends with the fiscal year in which the individual was first appointed, unless the date of the appointment was after September 30. For those whose initial appointment was effective after September 30, the "first year" ends with the fiscal year after the year of appointment. However, in no case shall more than 12 months’ notice be required.)

All appointments to term positions will be temporary appointments ending at or before the end of the term. Should need or money for the position be extended, a new term may be established with the approval of the dean or that appropriate vice president In such instances, the incumbent may be appointed for the new term or a portion thereof without the position being declared open for initiation of a search process.

Bargaining Unit for Unclassified Employees

C180 In accordance with the laws of the State of Kansas, the potential bargaining unit for Kansas State University unclassified employees has been determined by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) on December 20, 1982, to be as follows:

The appropriate bargaining unit for unclassified personnel at Kansas State University shall include:

1. All unclassified faculty with the academic rank of research assistant, research associate, assistant instructor, instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor if engaged five-tenths time or more in teaching, research, or extension;
2. Support unit personnel except physicians working in Lafene Health Center, and shall exclude:
1. Unclassified employees as stipulated: academic directors, associate directors, assistant directors; department heads; part-time employees (less than five-tenths time); temporary, visiting or adjunct employees and appointees; all students, including graduate teaching assistants, graduate research assistants, and graduate assistants; university officials, including the president, assistants to the president, administrative assistants to the president, provost, associate provost, assistant provost, vice presidents, associate vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, assistants to vice presidents, deans, associate deans, assistant deans, assistants to deans, controller, associate controller, assistant controller, registrar, associate registrar, assistant registrar, university attorney, branch station superintendents, area directors of extension;
2. County extension agents;
3. Physicians working in Lafene Student Health Center.

(The complete text of the PERB order is on file in Human Capital Services and in the Faculty Senate Office.)

Administrative Appeals and Grievance Resolution

C190 (Deletion, POD 4/27/12)

Grievance Resolution

C191 (Deletion, POD 4/27/12)

Ombudsperson

C192 Appointment and Term

On the recommendation of the Faculty Senate President, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall appoint three ombudspersons. When making these appointments, consideration shall be given to representing the demographic diversity of university personnel. Each position will be designated, and the pool of candidates shall be from one of the following categories: a) faculty member who has attained tenure in their respective department, b) unclassified professional staff, c) at-large representation (which may include tenure-track faculty, non-tenure track, or unclassified professional staff at any appointment status). Candidates for the ombudspersons shall be in good standing in all professional areas and shall have service qualifications that demonstrate knowledge of university structure and operations, such as, but not limited to service on Faculty Senate, a Faculty Senate committee, or grievance committee. The ombudspersons shall not serve in additional roles within the university that would compromise their ability to be perceived as unbiased. More information about the role of ombudspersons is available on the Human Capital Services website. Any qualified person wishing to be considered for appointment should follow the instructions provided when notice of a vacancy is announced to the university community.

Each ombudsperson shall serve a 36-month term (three years) that begins on July 1 and shall be listed as ombudsperson in the annual list of all-university appointments and the Campus Directory. Reappointment to a second consecutive term should take place only in exceptional circumstances, the basis of which will be explained by the Faculty Senate President to the Faculty Senate prior to the appointment. Terms of the ombudspersons will be staggered with one ombudsperson appointed each year. Ombudspersons who are unable or unwilling to adhere to C194 are subject to immediate replacement at the discretion of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. If for any reason an ombudsperson cannot complete a term, the term of the replacement will be for the balance of the original term.

C193 Recognition and Training

Service as ombudsperson shall be given appropriate consideration as part of the ombudsperson's responsibility during the term of appointment; the department head or functional equivalent shall ensure that service as ombudsperson shall be given consideration in decisions affecting assignments, salary, and promotion. The ombudsperson shall receive released time or be compensated in some other fashion. Expectations are that early in the term of an ombudsperson's appointment, opportunities will be provided by the university for the ombudsperson to receive supplemental preparation that may enhance his/her ability to be successful in the functions and responsibilities of an ombudsperson. Beyond conferring with current and former ombudspersons, such preparation shall include attending seminars, workshops, and meetings. The university will pay for the costs involved with the ombudsperson belonging to The Ombudsman Association or an equivalent organization, during the ombudsperson's term.

C194 Functions and Responsibilities

Functions and Responsibilities The ombudsperson's role is to facilitate a confidential, unbiased, and informal process to resolve concerns and disputes that arise within the university. The ombudsperson is an information, communication, and referral resource available to the faculty and unclassified professionals who seek service on a voluntary basis.

With exception(s) as specified in the University Handbook, the university recognizes and the ombuds will follow the Code of Ethics 1985 of the Ombudsman Association.

Ombudspersons are not mediators, arbitrators, or advocates for any person or position. Ombudspersons are advocates for fair processes and fair administration. While individuals are responsible for choosing a particular resolution, the ombudsperson may help develop options to resolve problems and/or facilitate discussion designed to identify agreeable options to resolve a dispute. Ombudspersons will exercise the responsibilities of their position with objectivity and impartiality, and will consider the concerns of all parties involved in a dispute. All communications with the ombudsperson(s) are confidential and they will not be expected to testify in any formal process inside or outside the university.

At the request or permission of the grievant, an ombudsperson shall provide information about the grievance process at issue and help walk the grievant through the initial stages of the grievance process. If requested by the grievant, the ombudsperson may also contact the administrator(s) involved to inquire as to the possibility of a resolution of the matter before a formal grievance hearing begins. The ombudsperson shall have access to anyone in the university including the president.