Board debates tenure and post‑tenure review changes, seeks wording clarifications before full board

Vice President Monholland reviewed proposed edits to three policy areas—workload, tenure and post‑tenure review—saying the revisions incorporated feedback from legislators, faculty senates and campus leaders to add clarifying due‑process language.

Monholland said the workload policy previously contained language that amounted to automatic dismissal after two consecutive unsatisfactory reviews; the revision replaces automated dismissal with a set of potential personnel responses. ‘‘Faculty who have two unsatisfactory reviews would be subject to not automatic dismissal, but subject to dismissal, reassignment or other personnel actions,’’ he said, noting the board sought to ensure due process and realistic improvement plans.

A central point of debate was whether denials of tenure or post‑tenure procedural appeals should be escalated to the Board. Some Regents described legislative feedback recommending board oversight of tenure decisions; Monholland and several provosts warned that making tenure decisions appealable to the board would intrude on shared university governance and create operational challenges. The group discussed swapping the appeal language between the tenure and post‑tenure sections so that procedural appeals of post‑tenure committee decisions could be filed to the board while tenure denials remain within university governance.

Regents asked for precise wording adjustments (for example, changing ‘‘and’’ to ‘‘and/or’’ in the improvement‑plan language and clarifying whether department chairs, deans or designate form post‑tenure review committees). Members also sought a carve‑out for the medical center to preserve its school‑level review practices. Several provosts described multi‑level tenure review processes at their institutions and emphasized the many internal appeal steps that occur before a chancellor or president makes a final determination.

Outcome and next steps: Regents asked staff to redraft the proposed language for items discussed (notably the appeal placement and the post‑tenure committee formation language), circulate the redraft to interested parties and bring the recommended language to the full board for formal consideration. No final policy change was adopted at this meeting.

Key quote: ‘‘We added language really throughout the three policies, to ensure due process safeguards,’’ Vice President Monholland said.