The University of Idaho Faculty Senate approved updates to the Faculty Senate Handbook at their Tuesday meeting.
Matthew Wesley, the executive director of human relations at UI, introduced the proposed changes to the Senate. The section being updated addresses performance evaluations of staff employees. The changes were approved without a formal vote.
Wesley explained that when a new employee is hired, their first six months at UI are probationary. This means they are “employed at will” so they can be let go at any time “for any reason or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason,” he said.
Non-probationary employees have much more protection from having their employment terminated, Wesley said. He said these employees can only lose their job “for cause” and that supervisors are held to a higher standard when dismissing certified employees.
However, Wesley noticed a loophole that he hopes to address with this change to the handbook.
If an employee is rated “needs improvement” or is rated as “unsatisfactory” in a performance evaluation they will be placed back on probation, he said. This is an issue because it means even individuals who have been working at the university for a long time can be returned to “employed at will” status and can be dismissed for any reason.
The updates to the Faculty Senate Handbook that Wesley proposed are meant to address this issue by not allowing certified employees to be placed back on probation.
Wesley said if an employee is given an unsatisfactory evaluation, they should have the opportunity to be trained to be more successful on the job before any other action is taken.
The update to the Faculty Senate Handbook also makes yearly performance evaluations mandatory instead of recommended as they have been in the past.
Sen. Shirly Luckhart voiced concerns that the update was not clear enough about what steps should be taken after an employee receives an unsatisfactory evaluation. Luckhart also worried how long addressing that should take.
Wesley said the update is intentionally unspecific on that matter because there should be discussion between the employee’s supervisor and human resources so they can come up with a specific plan that fits the employee. He said some performance issues may take differing amounts of time to address, so he does not suggest a specific timeline in this rule change.
Luckhart said this answer did not entirely ease her concerns about the lack of specificity. She expressed worries that the new rule may not be applied consistently or fairly to all employees.
Gavin Green can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @gavingreenphoto