Board adopts revisions to tenure, post-tenure review and workload policies after second reading

At its Jan. 14 meeting, the Kansas Board of Regents adopted revisions to systemwide policies on tenure, post-tenure review and faculty workload after a second reading and board vote.

Vice President Rusty Monholland and Regent Johnston summarized changes made since the first reading. The board removed language that would have made dismissal automatic after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual reviews and replaced it with phrasing that allows institutions flexibility, including dismissal, reassignment or other personnel actions as determined locally. Monholland said the revisions add clarity and provide shared-governance and due-process protections, and he described limits on board review in some cases: the decision of a chief executive officer, the policy reads, will remain final and "are not subject to further administrative review by any office or committee of the institution or by the Board of Regents."

Regent Johnston said the board and committee incorporated feedback from KU and K-State distinguished faculty and from Representative Steven Howe, and that BASC recommended leaving chief executive officer decisions final while allowing limited Board review of post-tenure committee decisions on procedural grounds. The revised language allows a post-tenure review appeal to the Board to be filed within 30 days and limited to procedural grounds; the board would determine whether the university followed its own procedures.

Regent Crocker and others praised the months-long consultation process. Board members also noted concerns about shortening the post-tenure review cycle to five years from seven; Regent Johnston clarified that existing faculty agreements with longer post-tenure review cycles would remain in effect until they expire, after which the five-year schedule would apply. The motion to adopt the policy changes was moved by Regent Amar, seconded by Regent Perasker, and carried on a voice vote.

The board recorded that institutional flexibility and data collection requirements are intended to ensure rigor and shared governance in implementation.