ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ

1. Purpose

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is issued under University Policy 18.009 (Faculty Workload) and provides the required procedures for assigning, documenting, and reviewing faculty workload units to individual faculty across academic units of ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ.

2. Definitions

1. Academic freedom. The right of faculty to determine the content and method of their teaching, research, scholarship, and creative activity within their disciplinary expertise, consistent with professional standards and institutional policy.
2. Administrative (disciplinary) action. Actions that the university may take if a faculty member fails to comply with the requirements of the faculty workload policy or this SOP, including but not limited to censure, remedial training, for-cause termination, or other disciplinary measures, regardless of tenure status, consistent with the authority granted by University Policy 18.009(F) and Ohio Revised Code §3345.45(D)(2)(d).
3. Appeal. A formal request by a faculty member for reconsideration of a workload assignment or related decision, following the multi-step process outlined in this SOP.
4. Credit hour (ICH). As defined in 34 C.F.R. 600.2, a credit hour reflects an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement. For purposes of this policy, a credit hour is the standard unit for measuring all faculty workload elements, including teaching and equivalents for RSCA, service, administration, clinical, and other duties.
5. Commercialization. The process of transforming academic discoveries and innovations into marketplace products or services.
6. Faculty. For the purposes of this SOP, faculty are employees of ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ holding faculty rank and status, including tenure-track, tenured, instructional, and clinical appointments.
7. Full-Time workload (nine-month). Thirty (30) Workload Units (WU) per nine-month academic year constitute 100 percent of the faculty workload. This is equivalent to 30 instructional credit hours of teaching or an equivalent combination of teaching, RSCA, service, administration, and/or clinical duties.
8. Justifiable credit hour equivalencies (CHE). All components of workload are translated into credit hour equivalencies to facilitate compliance. RSCA, as well as service and administrative duties, and clinical responsibilities (if applicable), are assigned credit-hour values to represent CHE that count toward the 30-credit full-time load.
9. Professional judgment. The reasoned and informed interpretation of evidence by experienced academic leaders, guided by established standards, institutional policy, and disciplinary context, when determining or approving workload assignments.
10. Proportional workload units (WU). The scaled workload assignment for faculty on appointments other than nine months or less than 1.0 FTE. Workload is prorated relative to the 30-WU, nine-month baseline—for example:
    • Part-time faculty receive a workload proportional to their appointment percentage (e.g., 0.1 FTE = 3 WU annual load).
    • Ten-month appointments are typically ≈ 33 WU annual load.
    • Eleven-month appointments are typically ≈ 36 WU annual load.
    • Twelve-month appointments are typically ≈ 40 WU annual load.
      All proportional assignments must be justified and approved in writing by the appropriate dean or equivalent administrator.
11. Teaching:Research:Service (TRS) Ratio. The proportional distribution of a faculty member’s effort across teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity (RSCA), service, and, if applicable, administrative duties, and clinical responsibilities.
12. Workload adjustment. A temporary or permanent modification to a faculty member’s workload distribution due to leave, reassignment, administrative appointment, overload, or other approved circumstances.
13. Workload distribution. The proportional allocation of workload units across assigned categories for a given academic year, expressed as ICH and/or CHE.
14. Workload obligations. The expectation that each faculty member will fulfill assigned workload responsibilities as approved for the academic year. Faculty are accountable for meeting the performance expectations associated with their assigned workload areas and for maintaining professional standards of conduct, productivity, and compliance.
15. Workload plan. A written document that outlines a faculty member’s assigned workload distribution, expressed in workload units (WU), across teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity (RSCA), service, clinical (if applicable), and administrative duties (if applicable) for a specified academic year, or other workload assignment length when applicable. The workload plan serves as the formal agreement of responsibilities between the faculty member and the academic unit.
16. Workload plan refinement. Details about specific responsibilities within the initially assigned workload plan, expressed in workload units (WU), provided to the faculty member after the initial workload plan and before the start of the workload period.
17. Workload units (WU). The standard measure of faculty activity that is used to quantify workload, equal to one instructional credit hour (ICH) or one credit-hour equivalent (CHE).

3. Guiding Principles

Faculty workload at ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ is guided by the following principles:

1. Academic Freedom. Workload assignments must respect faculty academic freedom and cannot be used to encourage, discourage, require, or forbid endorsement of any ideology, political stance, or viewpoint.
2. Compliance. Workload units and workload assignments must comply with Ohio Revised Code §3345.45, Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) Standards for Instructional Workloads for Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty, and University Policy 18.009. Workload procedures and assignments must be free from political or ideological considerations, consistent with ORC §3345.0217.
3. Transparency. Workload expectations, assignments, and justifiable CHE should be communicated clearly and documented in writing. Transparency ensures that faculty understand how activities are credited, and that workload decisions are open to review and verification.
4. Clarity. Benchmarks, definitions, and workload values should be expressed in plain, discipline-appropriate language that can be consistently applied across faculty members and understood by reviewers and administrators.
5. Context and Flexibility. Faculty workload should reflect the diversity of disciplines, college/campus standards/expectations, faculty roles, and faculty career stages. Based on established college guidelines and with approval, chairs, directors, and deans (or equivalent) may exercise flexibility in allocating workload to support faculty strengths, emerging responsibilities, or unit needs, provided that the total annual workload equals the equivalent of thirty workload units (30 WU) for a nine-month appointment or as prorated for 10-, 11-, and 12-month appointments.
6. Accountability. Faculty and administrators share responsibility for ensuring that workload assignments are accurately documented, equitably distributed, clearly communicated, and fulfilled as approved. Accountability also includes periodic review (at least every five years) of workload practices for consistency and fairness.
7. Professional Ethics. Faculty are expected to uphold the ethical standards of their discipline, comply with institutional and legal requirements, and demonstrate integrity in fulfilling assigned workload responsibilities. Administrators responsible for workload assignments are likewise expected to apply policies fairly, avoid conflicts of interest, and act in accordance with the university’s mission and professional codes of conduct.
8. Professional Judgment. Academic leaders are expected to apply professional judgment in assigning, approving, and interpreting workload. Such judgment must be reasoned, informed, and guided by university standards, disciplinary norms, and institutional priorities.
9. Continuous Improvement. Workload systems and procedures should be reviewed at regular intervals, at least once every five years, to ensure alignment with institutional mission, accreditation requirements, and evolving best practices in higher education.
10. Input. For faculty members with workload assignments in departments/schools, colleges, campuses, or other units outside the academic unit responsible for the workload unit assignment, department chairs and school directors are expected to receive input from all units or roles that define their workload. 

4. Alignment with State Standards

The Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) Standards for Instructional Workloads for Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty requires each public university to maintain faculty workload policies that reflect the institution’s mission while prioritizing undergraduate instruction. Teaching is identified as the primary means by which faculty contribute to that mission, though institutions may adjust workload expectations to reflect RSCA, commercialization, service, administrative, and clinical responsibilities. 

ODHE establishes minimum expectations for department/school teaching activity averages based on program activity as follows:

• Two-Year (Associate-Degree) Programs (active associate degree programs with no, or little, baccalaureate activity): Teaching should represent at least 80 percent of the department’s total faculty workload.
• Baccalaureate Departments (active four-year undergraduate programs with no, or limited, activities in graduate programs, including those in or co-managed by other departments or held centrally): Teaching should represent at least 70 percent of the department’s total faculty workload.
• Baccalaureate/Master’s Departments (active baccalaureate and master’s degree programs with no, or limited, activities in doctoral programs, including those in or co-managed by other departments or held centrally): Teaching should represent at least 60 percent of the department’s total faculty workload.
• Baccalaureate/Master’s/Doctoral Departments (active baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral programs): Teaching should represent at least 50 percent of the department’s total faculty workload.

ODHE further recognizes that faculty roles will vary both across and within academic units. Institutions are expected to differentiate workload expectations according to faculty appointment type, discipline, program needs, and individual strengths. This differentiation supports the balance of teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, service, clinical, and administrative duties within the broader institutional mission. Departments/schools are responsible for ensuring that all faculty carry a full workload while maintaining an overall balance that meets program needs, campus expectations (if applicable), college guidelines, and institutional standards.

4.1 Special Cases

ODHE also acknowledges that not all faculty or programs fit neatly within standard departmental classifications. In such cases, the appropriate proportion of teaching within the academic unit’s workload should be determined by the dean (or equivalent or designee), subject to approval by the provost (or designee), with emphasis on maintaining strong undergraduate teaching activity.

Departments that differ substantially from standard classifications—such as those with primarily graduate or professional programs —should establish teaching expectations through negotiation between the department chair / school director and the college dean (or designee), also subject to provost-level approval. 

Likewise, faculty whose appointments differ from traditional instructional roles, such as academic administrators, research faculty, or faculty with externally funded assignments, should have their teaching responsibilities individually determined and approved through the same review process.

5. Process for Assigning Workload Annually

This section establishes the procedures by which workload units (WU) are assigned to individual faculty members on an annual basis. Workload assignments should be determined in accordance with University Policy 18.009, ODHE standards, relevant provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, and approved department/school, college, and university workload standards. 

Each academic unit must ensure that the total workload units assigned to each full-time faculty member (1.0 FTE) equals thirty (30) workload units for a nine-month appointment, or a proportional equivalent for other contract lengths and/or proportional FTE appointments.

Academic units are expected to follow a transparent, equitable, and documented process when assigning workloads. Each step in this process must include communication of expectations regarding faculty responsibilities and compliance with applicable university policies.

Note: Projected workload plans must be provided with the faculty annual evaluations. Typically, the initial projected workload plan is expected to be broadly specified with details added later. For example, faculty may be initially assigned only a certain number of workload units in teaching for the forthcoming workload period (e.g., 15 WUs) with specific details about the courses provided later.

Step 1. Verify the faculty member’s TRS distribution

Before establishing a workload unit plan, the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator must verify the faculty member’s approved TRS distribution—reflecting the proportional workload allocation across teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity (RSCA), and service, and where applicable, clinical or administrative duties.

The verified distribution must align with the faculty member’s appointment type, contract length, and any approved workload adjustments (e.g., for reassignment, leave, or college priorities). For faculty with appointments or affiliations outside their promotion/tenure home, the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator are expected to coordinate expected workload distributions with appropriate academic leaders. 

The TRS (and, if applicable, clinical or administrative) distribution should be documented and reviewed annually during the workload planning cycle and again during the annual evaluation process. Faculty should receive written confirmation of their TRS (and, if applicable, clinical or administrative) distribution.

Step 2. Solicit faculty input on goals and workload priorities

Before assigning a workload unit plan, the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator should provide each faculty member an opportunity to share input on their professional goals, planned activities, and workload priorities for the academic year. At their discretion, department chairs / school directors may impose a deadline and restrictions regarding faculty input. 

Faculty input may identify anticipated teaching, RSCA, service, clinical, or administrative activities that align with the faculty member’s appointment type, disciplinary norms, and academic unit mission. This input may include:

• Proposed scholarly or creative projects and expected outcomes;
• Planned professional or community service commitments;
• Requests for workload adjustments or balance among assigned areas; and/or
• Career development goals relevant to the university’s mission and strategic priorities.

Faculty input should adhere to their department/school (or equivalent), college (or equivalent), and campus standards for workload assignments, including percentage of workload units dedicated to teaching activities as specified in ODHE’s workload standards. 

Faculty input does not constitute a self-assignment of workload. Instead, it serves as an essential component of collaborative planning and documentation. Chairs and directors are expected to consider this input, along with programmatic needs and institutional priorities, when developing the faculty member’s final workload plan.

Step 3. Develop a plan for teaching workload units

Teaching workload units must align with the faculty member’s verified TRS distribution and comply with workload standards established by the department/school, college, campus (if applicable), university (if applicable), and ODHE. 

The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator is typically responsible for assigning courses; instructional formats, such as course delivery modality, meeting patterns, and location; and related teaching duties, such as required established norms for assessments of learning, student experiences, or continuous improvement. Such assignments cannot violate faculty’s academic freedom. For faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices), departments/schools are expected to coordinate with other academic units.

Workload unit (WU) assignments should follow a maximum limit on the total number of acceptable adjustments and multipliers. WU assignments should also follow relevant limits for any reduction in teaching WUs for other workload areas (e.g., a buyout for funded RSCA efforts). 

Expectations. Faculty should be informed of the expectations associated with their teaching responsibilities. Examples of such expectations include, but are not limited to:

• Change of Instructor, Time, or Place of Meeting. Instructors must adhere to the assigned time and place of meetings for a scheduled class. Change of instructor, time, or place of a meeting for a scheduled class may be made only with the approval of the department chair or school director, who shall report in writing all such changes to the dean or the dean’s designee and to the Registrar.
• Information Given Class at First Meeting. The instructor must comply with university syllabus policies before the first day of class and policies about additional information that must be given to students before or during the first meeting of the class.
• Instructor Absences. The instructor is expected to meet all classes for which they are scheduled. Members of the faculty who must be absent from teaching responsibilities should have approval of the chair of the department and the dean of the college. If an absence can be anticipated, approval should be obtained in advance and, where possible, arrangements made for a substitute.
• Regular and Substantive Interaction (RSI). Instructors are expected to adhere to and for RSI.

Step 4. Develop a plan for RSCA workload units

For faculty with RSCA responsibilities, RSCA workload units must align with the faculty member’s verified TRS distribution and be determined in accordance with the standards established by the department/school, college, campus (if applicable), and university (if applicable). 

The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator is responsible for assigning workload units (WU) for RSCA activities, which may include both ongoing effort (inputs) and anticipated scholarly or creative outcomes (outputs). Project workload plans may also include goals or expectations for commercialization, when appropriate.

Workload unit (WU) assignments should follow a maximum limit on the total number of acceptable adjustments and multipliers. WU assignments should also follow relevant limits for any reduction in RSCA WUs for other workload areas. 

Expectations. Faculty should be informed of the expectations associated with their scholarly or creative responsibilities. Examples of expectations include, but are not limited to:

• RSCA Inputs. Maintaining consistent engagement in ongoing RSCA activities such as proposal development, project implementation, writing, or creative production throughout the academic year.
• RSCA Outputs. Documenting progress and outcomes in a manner consistent with department/school and college requirements.
• Professional Ethics. Adhering to the professional and ethical standards of the discipline, including responsible conduct of research and compliance with applicable policies or regulations.

Step 5. Develop a plan for service workload units

Service workload units must align with the faculty member’s verified TRS distribution and reflect approved standards established by the department/school, college, campus (if applicable), and university (if applicable). 

The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator is responsible for assigning workload units (WU) for service that include both routine and additional service expectations defined for the academic year. For faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices), departments/schools are expected to coordinate with other academic units.

Workload unit (WU) assignments should follow a maximum limit on the total number of acceptable adjustments and multipliers. WU assignments should also include a maximum limit of WUs assigned, consistent with the faculty member’s annual workload percentage assigned to service. 

Expectations. Faculty should be informed of the expectations associated with their institutional (department/school, college, campus, and/or university), professional, or community service responsibilities. Examples of such expectations include, but are not limited to:

• Participation. Active and reliable participation in assigned committees, faculty governance bodies, or institutional initiatives, including regular attendance and contribution to the completion of committee responsibilities.
• Documented Outcomes. Completion of additional service assignments such as leadership of short-term projects, accreditation or assessment activities, or coordination of unit-level initiatives, as approved within the assigned service workload percentage.
• Professional Ethics. Adherence to professional standards of collegiality, fairness, and confidentiality in the performance of service responsibilities, and timely communication with the chair, director, or dean regarding availability and progress on assigned tasks.

Step 6. Develop a plan for administration workload units (if applicable)

Administrative workload must align with the faculty member’s verified workload distribution and the operational needs of the academic unit, college, or campus. The department chair, school director, or appropriate administrator is responsible for assigning workload units (WU) for administrative duties, which may include coordination, reporting, or oversight responsibilities within the 30-WU framework or the proportional equivalent for other contract lengths and/or proportional FTE appointments.

Expectations. Faculty should be informed of the expectations associated with administrative responsibilities. Examples of expectations include, but are not limited to:

• Documented Outcomes. Fulfilling defined administrative tasks such as program coordination, curriculum management, or assessment reporting in accordance with established timelines.
• Effective Leadership. Communicating effectively with relevant committees, faculty, and administrators to ensure accuracy, compliance, and timely completion of administrative work.
• Professional Ethics. Upholding professional standards of confidentiality, integrity, and fairness in the execution of administrative duties.

Step 7. Develop a plan for clinical workload units (if applicable)

Clinical assignments must align with the faculty member’s verified workload distribution and reflect approved standards for the discipline and academic unit. The department chair, school director, or appropriate administrator is responsible for assigning workload units (WU) for clinical services provided in the patient care setting in affiliated ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ clinics.

Workload unit (WU) assignments should follow a maximum limit on the total number of acceptable adjustments and multipliers. WU assignments should also follow relevant limits for any reduction in clinical WUs for other workload areas. 

Expectations. Faculty should be informed of the expectations associated with their clinical responsibilities. Examples of expectations include, but are not limited to:

• Compliance. Maintaining compliance with accreditation, licensure/credentialing, or site supervision standards applicable to the clinical field.
• Performance. Ensuring appropriate and ethical supervision of students, clients, or patients, including adhering to standards of care, timely documentation of hours, performance, and outcomes.
• External Stakeholders. Coordinating with external partners or placement sites to uphold institutional and professional standards.
• Professional Ethics. Upholding principles and/or codes of ethics adopted by a faculty member’s profession and professional standards of confidentiality, integrity, and fairness in the execution of clinical duties.

Step 8. Finalize and confirm projected workload plan

After all applicable workload areas have been developed, the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator must prepare a written summary of the faculty member’s projected workload plan for the academic year (or equivalent for faculty on shorter or longer contract periods). This summary must document:

• The verified TRS distribution (and, if applicable, clinical or administrative);
• The number of workload units (WU) assigned in each category; and
• Any approved adjustments or exceptions within the 30-WU (or proportional) framework.

Final workload plans must be reviewed and approved (or disapproved) by the dean (or equivalent or designee) and the Provost (or designee).

After receiving approval from the dean (or equivalent), the final projected workload plan should be communicated to the faculty member in writing and acknowledged by both the faculty member and the department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator.  The final projected workload plan must be communicated to faculty with their annual evaluation for the preceding workload period.

Step 9. Projected workload plan refinement

Before the start of the workload period, the department chair or school director is expected to communicate refinements to the projected workload plan to the faculty member in writing. 

Refinements include specific responsibilities within the originally assigned workload plan, such as specifics about teaching assignments (e.g., courses, days/times, modality, etc.) and/or service assignments. Refinements are expected to align with the initial workload plan. If refinements deviate from the initial projected workload plan, an adjustment is required (see next step).  For faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices), departments/schools are expected to coordinate with other academic units and provide them with a copy of the final workload plan.

Step 10. Workload plan adjustment (as needed)

If a workload plan changes before or during the academic year, the department chair or school director must prepare a revised workload plan and communicate it to the faculty member in writing. Adjustments must be approved by the dean and maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file along with the original assignment. 

For faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices), departments/schools are expected to coordinate with other academic units on revised workload plans.

Note: Overloads or similar responsibilities that are compensated outside of the projected workload unit plan are not considered workload plan adjustments. Assignments and approvals for overloads or similar responsibilities are subject to separate approval processes established by the college.

6. Non-Compliance and Administrative (Disciplinary) Actions

Faculty members are expected to fulfill all assigned workload obligations in accordance with University Policy 18.009, this Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), and applicable college and departmental workload standards. Failure to meet workload obligations may constitute non-compliance with university policy and result in administrative or disciplinary action as authorized under University Policy 18.009(F) and Ohio Revised Code §3345.45(D)(2)(d).

6.1 Definition of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance occurs when a faculty member knowingly or repeatedly fails to meet assigned workload responsibilities, violates established workload procedures, or refuses to adhere to workload expectations. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Failure to teach or perform assigned instructional, clinical, or administrative responsibilities without approved leave or prior authorization.
• Failure to fulfill RSCA or service responsibilities without approved leave or prior authorization.
• Repeated disregard for university or unit policies governing workload documentation, reporting, or professional conduct related to assigned duties.
• Misrepresentation or falsification of workload documentation.

6.2 Administrative (Disciplinary) Actions

In cases of non-compliance, the university reserves the right to impose administrative or disciplinary actions consistent with Ohio law and/or university policy. Possible actions include, but are not limited to:

1. Written warning. Official communication in writing to inform the faculty member about the failure to meet performance expectations, the expected correction required to meet expectations in the future, and the probable consequence(s) for subsequent failure to meet performance expectations.
2. Recommendations for training or professional development. Official communication that suggests (but does not require) corrective actions for performance improvement.
3. Formal Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA). Official communication that requires (rather than recommends) specific goals and mandates required corrective actions for performance improvement during a specified period of time. The PIA should be developed through mutual consent and signed by all parties. The PIA must specify consequences for failure to complete the PIA.
4. Temporary or permanent suspension of duties. Official communication to temporarily or permanently suspend specific assigned duties in an assigned area of workload. Suspension of duties must be consistent with academic unit policies, communicated in writing, and cannot violate academic freedom.
5. Temporary or permanent redistribution of workload assignments. Official communication to temporarily or permanently decrease workload distribution in one area with a corresponding increase in another area. Redistribution must be consistent with academic unit policies and communicated in writing.
6. Written censure. Official communication (typically titled as a Censure) that sharply criticizes and reprimands the faculty member for failing to meet expectations. A censure must mandate immediate corrective actions and outline outcomes for failing to comply.
7. Professional complaint. Formal complaint or other notification to a professional, state or national licensing board.
8. Temporary or permanent reduction in FTE (and corresponding salary). Official communication to temporarily or permanently decrease the faculty member’s full-time equivalent (FTE) status (e.g., from 1.0 FTE to 0.8 FTE). Reductions in FTE must be developed through mutual consent, communicated in writing, and signed by all parties.
9. Initiation of formal dismissal proceedings. Official communication to initiate formal proceedings to terminate a faculty appointment in accordance with university policy and due process requirements.

6.3 Procedural Requirements

1. Notification. The faculty member must be provided with a written notice describing the nature of the alleged non-compliance, the specific workload expectations in question, and an opportunity to respond or provide relevant documentation.
2. Review. The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator will review the matter in consultation with the dean. For faculty with regional higher education affiliations, the academic dean is expected to consult with RHE leadership. For faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices), the academic dean is expected to coordinate with other academic units.
3. Decision. The department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator and dean will determine an appropriate administrative action and communicate that to the faculty member in writing. If warranted, the case may be referred to the Office of the Provost for further action under applicable disciplinary procedures.
4. Documentation. Findings and actions taken must be documented and retained in the faculty member’s personnel file.
5. Appeal. Faculty members retain the right to appeal administrative or disciplinary actions through the procedures established in this SOP or other applicable university policies.

7. Appeals Process

Faculty members may appeal any administrative or disciplinary action for failure to comply with workload expectations using the following appeal process. Appeals must be initiated and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined below.

The purpose of this appeals process is to ensure fairness, consistency, and procedural due process in the assignment and enforcement of faculty workload. The process provides faculty members with an opportunity to seek review of workload decisions or disciplinary actions that they believe are inconsistent with University Policy 18.009, this SOP, or approved college or unit workload standards.

Appeals must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

• Material deviation from approved workload policy or procedure;
• Factual inaccuracy or omission affecting the decision;
• Unreasonable or inequitable application of workload standards; or
• Disproportionate or inappropriate disciplinary action.

Step 1: Written Appeal

Faculty members may submit a written appeal to their department chair, school director, or equivalent administrator within ten (10) business days of receiving written notice of disciplinary action. The appeal should clearly describe the decision being challenged, the grounds for appeal, and any supporting documentation. 

Faculty with regional higher education affiliations should copy RHE leadership when submitting their appeal.  Faculty with appointments across academic units (i.e., other departments, colleges, or administrative offices) should copy all academic units when submitting their appeal. 

Step 2: Chair/Director Review

At their discretion, the chair or director may meet with the faculty member. The chair or director will review the appeal, meet with the faculty member if necessary, and issue a written response within ten (10) business days. The written response must include the decision, rationale, and reference to any applicable workload standards or policies. 

If the appeal is resolved between the chair/director and the faculty member, the chair/director shall forward the proposed resolution to the Dean for approval/disapproval. If approved by the Dean, the Dean shall forward to the Provost for review.

Step 3: Dean Review

If the matter remains unresolved, the faculty member may submit a written appeal to the dean within ten (10) business days of receiving the chair’s or director’s written response.

The dean will review the appeal, consult with relevant administrators, and may meet with the faculty member and/or department chair or school director. In cases where the faculty member is either affiliated with a regional campus or another academic unit, the dean should also consult with the leadership of that unit. The dean must issue a written response within fifteen (15) business days, including a summary of findings and final determination at the college level.

If the appeal is resolved during the dean review, the dean shall forward the proposed resolution to the dean shall forward to the Provost for review.

Step 4: Provost Review

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied after the Chair/Director Review and the Dean Review, the faculty member may appeal to the Provost within ten (10) business days of receiving the dean’s written response. 

The Provost is expected to review documentation from the preceding steps. At their discretion, the Provost (or designee) may meet with the faculty member, chair/director, or dean. The Provost must issue a written response within 15 business days.

Step 5: Faculty Review Committee

If the faculty member remains dissatisfied, they may request review by a Faculty Review Committee within 10 business days of the Provost written response. The committee will be composed of at least seven full-time faculty members appointed by the Provost (or designee), in consultation with the Chairs & Directors Council.

The committee is expected to review the faculty activity report, written evaluations, and appeal responses at each prior level. At their discretion, the committee may request clarifications from the faculty member, chair/director, dean, or Provost.

The committee is responsible for determining if there have been violations of due process, inadequate consideration, or academic freedom. If violations are identified, the committee is charged with recommending correction actions to the Provost. The committee should not comment on the merits of the activity report or use their judgment to determine different evaluation ratings.

The committee must provide a written recommendation to the Provost within 20 business days. This recommendation is advisory and will be forwarded to the Provost.

Step 6: Final Decision

Informed by the Faculty Review Committee recommendation(s), the Provost is expected to issue a final written decision within 15 business days.

8. Record Keeping

All workload-related records must be maintained in a secure and consistent manner to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with university and state requirements. Academic units must retain documentation of workload assignments, revisions, appeals, and any related administrative or disciplinary actions as part of each faculty member’s official personnel record.

Workload records must be stored and retained in accordance with ÃÛèÖÊÓƵ’s records retention schedule and state public records requirements. Colleges are responsible for ensuring that documentation is complete and accessible for institutional review, and the Office of the Provost may periodically audit workload records for accuracy and policy compliance.

Revision History

• November 12, 2025 – Initial Draft