“Employees” is defined as “any individual hired by the college into a full- or part-time position” in the Personnel Definitions. This applies to both Faculty and Staff. Not all sections of the Reduction in Force policy apply to both staff and faculty. In specific instances, the terms “staff” and “faculty” are used individually. Overall, the term “employee” is used more than 40 times in the policy. The terms “faculty” and “staff” are used substantively about 5 times each.

The policy is organized by type of reduction. This organization around function instead of labor unit is more effective as the procedures are generally applicable to both faculty and staff. Where there is greater nuance within the policy, the terms “faculty” and “staff” have been used instead of the broader group of “employees.”

In a reduction in force, a reorganization, or a reallocation process, there are multiple levels of approval required. Rubrics that will be used as tools to determine the decision-making process are created and reviewed by PWC and Legal, in addition to other levels of administration. Supervisors will not be making final decisions ad hoc. There are multiple checks and balances that are integral to this process.

Yes, there will be a second 15-day comment period.

Thank you for your comments. This policy does not lay out alternatives. This policy outlines the procedures that occur after alternatives have been considered and exhausted. Alternatives for consideration would have been thought through and implemented before any RIF decisions (and this policy) would be enacted. Faculty and Staff Association Leaders have an advisory role per the bylaws of their organizations, and as required by USHE, these leaders are included in Board of Trustees meetings to obtain input. The Faculty, Staff, and Student Association leadership does not have decision-making power.

Thank you for your comment.

This version of the policy provides more participation from associations than USHE requires. Reorganization and RIF are separate and distinct actions that they institution may take. This policy does not supersede the Faculty Handbook.

Thank you for your comment. This policy does not supersede the Faculty Handbook.

Thank you for your comment. Academic Freedom is a tenet the college treats with utmost respect and support. The Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, and Tenure policy will remain in effect to support faculty.

The supervisor does not have the power under this policy to dictate the outcome of reduction in force decisions. They must use thorough and consistent criteria. In a reduction in force, reorganization, or reallocation process, there are multiple levels of approval required. Rubrics that will be used as tools to determine the decision-making process are created and reviewed by PWC and Legal, in addition to other levels of administration. Supervisors will not be making final decisions ad hoc. There are multiple checks and balances that are integral to this process. In the existing policy, the grievance rights under IV.A.11.d(6) only apply to reorganizations. Section 4.B.6.d in the revised policy draft is very specific that grievance rights do not apply when “the loss of employment [is] due to the college’s implementation of the State Board of Higher Education’s approved declaration of financial exigency.” This only addresses the elimination of positions in response to an approved declaration of financial exigency.

Supervisors can’t decide the outcomes of reduction in force or reorganization decisions on their own. They must follow thorough and consistent criteria. These processes require multiple levels of approval, and tools like rubrics that are reviewed by PWC, Legal, and other administrative levels. Supervisors won’t make final decisions ad hoc; there are checks and balances in place. The existing policy states that grievance rights under IV.A.11.d(6) only apply to reorganizations. The revised policy draft specifies that grievance rights don’t apply when job loss is due to the college’s implementation of the State Board of Higher Education’s approved declaration of financial exigency. This only covers position eliminations in response to financial exigency. Additionally, section 4.H.2.d.(2) of the revised policy states that reorganization shouldn’t be used to address performance issues. Utah Code §34A-5-112 protects employees from discrimination for lawful expression outside of work regarding their beliefs. If an employee feels discriminated against during a reorganization, they can request an EO investigation.

Reductions and reorganizations do not happen in isolation. Reorganizations specifically involve checks and balances by involving the vice president, PWC, and the supervisor in discussions. Other areas of the college, such as Legal, can also be brought into the discussion. Section 4.H.2.d.(2) of the revised policy states, “Reorganization shall not be used as a substitute for corrective action or other performance-related issues.” Additionally, Utah Code §34A-5-112 states, “An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person’s religious, political, or personal convictions…” If an employee feels discriminated against during a reorganization, they have the right to request an EO investigation.

PWC’s role is to consult and collaborate with college staff to ensure that policies are followed. While PWC is not the decision-making authority, they work closely with all departments to ensure backend processes are completed in accordance with college policy. The goal is to maintain a smooth and compliant operational environment.

Utah Board of Higher Education r.841 is not relevant because this is not a corrective action policy.

Thank you for your comment. While the revised policy does not explicitly adopt the terminology used in R482, the underlying concepts are reflected throughout the policy and its associated procedures. The decision to incorporate alternative language, such as that found in Section 4.B.4.a(4), was made to enhance clarity and readability.

The definition in the revised policy draft was crafted to be intentionally broad to meet current and future legislative and compliance requirements.

The terms you highlight here are subject matter expert terms of art. In a legal context, using such a “term of art” is intentional as it has a specialized doctrinal meaning, serving as shorthand for legal concepts. There are checks and balances in place so that no one individual has unilateral decision-making powers. Determinations are made with PWC, Legal, and other entities. None of these difficult decisions would be made in a “silo” scenario. Multiple levels of decision makers from multiple departments would be involved in the process.

In the Personnel Definitions, linked to from section 3 of the revised policy, the terms employees, full-time faculty, and adjunct faculty are each defined. “Employees” is defined as “any individual hired by the college into a full- or part-time position” in the Personnel Definitions. This applies to both Faculty and Staff. Not all sections of the Reduction in Force policy apply to both staff and faculty. So, in specific instances, “staff” and “faculty” are used individually. “Employee” is used over 40 times in the policy. The terms “faculty” and “staff” are used in the policy, aside from definitions, about 5 times each.

Reduction in force decisions do not occur in a vacuum. For example, the Board of Trustees works with the Utah Board of Higher Education in this process. Regarding section 4.B.5 in the revised policy states that the College President or designee “shall meet with the presidents of the institutionally recognized faculty and staff organizations and the Student Association” for input. The current policy uses the word “consult,” which does not guarantee that such meetings will occur. The choice to use “shall” in section 4.B.5 was explicitly designed to ensure the input would be received and discussed.

Thank you for your comment. The word “and” was specifically used in the revised policy so that all factors will be taken into consideration together. Given all factors will be evaluated, we do not see a conflict.

Reduction in force decisions do not occur in a vacuum. There are multiple levels of approval required. Rubrics that will be used as tools to determine the decision-making process are created and reviewed by PWC and Legal, in addition to other levels of administration. Supervisors will not be making final decisions ad hoc. There are multiple checks and balances that are integral to this process. Section 4.B.5 of the revised policy specifies that the president or their designee “shall meet with the presidents of the institutionally recognized faculty and staff organizations and the Student Association” for input. The current policy uses the word “consult,” which does not guarantee that such meetings will occur. 4.B.5 is another check and balance in the process.

No changes made.

In the Personnel Definitions, linked to from section 3 of the revised policy, the term “regular employees” is defined as “a full-time faculty or staff member whose employment is continuous and initially funded for a non-temporary period who has successfully completed the probationary period.” Under this definition, both tenured and non-tenured faculty could be considered “regular employees.”

The prioritization for a reduction in force within SLTC would be program-specific. Since SLTC faculty are not tenured, they will not be at a disadvantage.

Section 4.B.5 has been revised to “shall meet with the presidents of the institutionally recognized faculty and staff organizations and the Student Association.” The current policy uses the word “consult,” which does not guarantee that such meetings will occur. 4.B.5 is another check and balance in the reduction in force process.

If an employee believes there is a discriminatory concern, they can file an EO complaint at any time.

Thank you for your comment. Part-time is not the only factor that would be considered in the full analysis.

Reorganization is distinct from a Reduction in Force. The procedures for these two types of actions differ, and the respective sections clearly define who has the authority to make decisions regarding a Reduction in Force versus a reorganization, based on business needs.

No changes made. In the event of a financial exigency, timeliness will be important. Additionally, these representatives also have seats at the Board of Trustees meetings and will be able to review proposals and express recommendations at that time.

Thank you for your comment. No changes were made.

Thank you for your comment. This clause is needed as the statute gives the president wide discretion, provided that the president’s determinations receive approval from both the Board of Trustees and USHE.

No. This section does not apply to all other procedure sections.

President Peterson’s remarks pertained specifically to HB265 and were not directed toward or intended to influence the modification of this policy.

4.D.1.b has been revised to clarify that “this notice requirement does not apply to part-time, temporary, or probationary employees.”

Notice benefits are extended to full-time employees in recognition of their employment status. These benefits are not extended to part-time, temporary, or probationary employees, whose employment terms differ accordingly.

Thank you for your comment. 4.D.1.a(1) has been revised to provide administrators a minimum of 28 calendar days’ notice.

Thank you. No changes.

Thank you for your comment. 4.E.2.a has been revised to clarify part-time, temporary, or probationary employees. Notice benefits are extended to full-time employees in recognition of their employment status. These benefits are not extended to part-time, temporary, or probationary employees, whose employment terms differ accordingly.

President Peterson’s remarks pertained specifically to HB265 and were not directed toward or intended to influence the modification of this policy.

Thank you for your comment. This policy does not supersede the Faculty Handbook.

Section 4.G.2 directly addresses this concern, emphasizing the evaluation of programmatic impact and the potential discontinuance of academic programs.

Section 4.G.2.c is applicable to all employees. Regarding Section 4.G.2.f, this policy does not override or supersede provisions outlined in the Faculty Handbook.

While substantial participation is not mandated, consistent with our mission, we aim to provide representatives from these organizations the opportunity to offer input. In addition to the provisions outlined in Section 4.G.3, these representatives also attend Board of Trustees meetings, where they are afforded the opportunity to express any concerns.

Reorganization is driven by the operational needs of the department and division. It is intended for limited, small-scale adjustments aligned with evolving business requirements.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, it applies to faculty. “Employees” is defined as “any individual hired by the college into a full- or part-time position” in the Personnel Definitions. This applies to both Faculty and Staff.

Reorganizations are subject to approval by higher levels of administration, ensuring appropriate oversight. The process incorporates checks and balances to promote transparency and accountability.

This policy does not override or supersede provisions outlined in the Faculty Handbook and provisions for tenure.

Operational goals of our strategic plan and division of the college leadership.

Thank you for your comment. No changes.

Part of the current process requires the president’s approval.

Thank you for your comment. The form requires the approval of a reorganization change.

No. A department rule applies solely within the scope of a specific department. In contrast, this procedure is mandated at the college-wide level and is therefore applicable across all departments.

Multiple levels of approval are required in the approval process. This provides checks and balances.

Revision accepted.

Section 4.I.1 has been revised to specify “advanced notice of the employee’s separation of employment.” Payment in Lieu of Notice (4.I) does not apply to reorganizations, as the college will be able to provide a minimum of 28 days’ notice. Section 4.D.1, which addresses the timeliness of notice, applies specifically to layoffs resulting from a reduction in force and does not extend to reorganizations.

Thank you for your comment. No changes.

No changes. A department rule applies solely within the scope of a specific department. In contrast, this procedure is mandated at the college-wide level and is therefore applicable across all departments.

Thank you for your comment. This policy does not preclude employees from considering or pursuing early retirement options available through the college.

Effective April 9, 2025, as communicated in President Peterson’s email, the college no longer permits remote work for employees who do not hold permanent Utah residency. Telecommuting requests and agreements will be subject to annual review to ensure they continue to meet department needs.

This Reduction in Force policy change appears to remove tenured faculty protections completely. Tenured faculty used to be only able to be eliminated through the AFPRT policy processes or through Reduction in Force based on Financial Exigency, but this policy states that a SUPERVISOR can remove tenured faculty based on reasons as nebulous as “changing department needs.” Section H used to apply to staff and administrators only, but now includes tenured faculty as well.

This renders tenure pretty much meaningless. I know that tenure carries fewer protections than most people think it does, but this seems to wipe it out completely if a supervisor can eliminate tenured faculty positions. This suggests a department chair can, if they so wish, remove tenured faculty based on “process improvement, changing department needs, or changes in strategy.”

This policy also says that there is no recourse against being removed in this manner. This will completely disempower faculty and upend the collegial balance that exists (or should exist). Faculty could be subject to tyrannical supervisors (which we have had before). It says that it shall not be used for corrective action, but that is not enough of a protection against that happening. If it is approved, then a faculty member has no way to contest that, because they cannot contest being eliminated in this manner.

I am assuming that this is not what this policy intends and that it is attempting to respond to the reallocation requirement. (Though, perhaps it is...I don’t know.) Regardless, the content removes reasonable due process protections as it is written. The amorphous reasons that a supervisor may eliminate employees are too vague; they only need VP approval, and they do not have ample representation of the Staff/Faculty bodies. The other two processes (Financial Exigency and Budget) are required to be reviewed by these bodies. This supervisory elimination process must include this process step as well. There is much more risk of inappropriate use of this by individual supervisors and VPs than by the president or the Utah State Board of Higher Education.

Thank you for reading this response and considering it.

There seems to be a conflict between 4.B.2.c.1-5 where several factors are placed before tenure status and 4.B.4.4 where tenure is placed as a higher priority and 4.C.2&3 when again other factors are placed before tenure status.

G. Budget Plan Including a Reduction in Force Without the Declaration of Financial Exigency
1. If the college needs to reduce or shift expenditures to address a budget deficit, shortage, or legislative mandate, the college president may approve a budget plan that includes a reduction in force without the declaration of financial exigency.

In addition to this being a blatant attack on tenure, has anyone consulted Northwestern about this? I thought accreditors looked very poorly on firing tenured faculty without declaring financial exigency, and other colleges have had penalties for doing this.

d. No employee may initiate an employee grievance for the loss of employment due to the college’s implementation of the State Board of Higher Education’s approved declaration of financial exigency”

I understand this policy to mean that employees not only have no choice in losing their jobs but also have no way to challenge the decision or express their concerns. This removes any opportunity for due process or to clarify individual circumstances, which I believe is fundamentally unfair. Employees should have the right to defend their position and seek a review, especially in matters as serious as job loss.

To amplify and expand on the legitimate concerns already expressed here...the policy as written allows for layoffs not only under financial exigency but also under a budget plan or reorganization. This is very loosely defined and, as others have pointed out, could be used as pretexts to eliminate employees without clear financial necessity.

Without any recourse for initiating a grievance to question elimination, employees are at much greater risk for unfair layoffs. Reorganization is left to supervisors with few constraints. This allows for discretionary elimination of positions, again without clear oversight or transparency.

There are no clear definitions regarding what constitutes a “budget deficit” or shortage, which can (and will likely given administrative behaviors of the past and present) be used to RIF people without rigorous oversight. The president has broad discretion to determine which employees are “vital” without a clear process for how they will go about making these determinations.

While tenured faculty are ranked higher in prioritization (§4.B.4), they are not explicitly protected from layoffs. The factors for determining who is RIFed (§4.C) include “any other relevant factors.” What does that mean? This seems entirely subjective and could very well undermine tenure protections–these protections are important given that faculty who teach courses with academically necessary content about climate change, evolution, political and cultural philosophies/ideologies/histories, gender & culture, economics in political/cultural/historical context, colonialism & imperialism, apartheid, genocide, ethnic cleansing, environmental studies, art, dance (this has already happened to Jazz Dance under a different, vague policy), etc. could be placed at further risk for simply situating their disciplines in their necessary contexts.

The policy is void of any discussion or practice of exhausting alternative cost-cutting measures before laying off people according a vague budget plan which is very much top down and effectively curtails shared governance. Faculty, Staff, and Student Association leaders are only given an advisory role (§4.B.5, §4.G.3-4) in which their recommendations are not binding. Decisions rest almost entirely with administrators with no guarantee of oversight by other critical stakeholders at the College, especially those who could be irrevocably harmed by the layoffs.

The policy does not require SLCC to consider non-personnel budget reductions before reducing faculty and staff. High-cost administrative positions and external contracts are not explicitly considered in this policy. For example, why do certain Cabinet members have the budget to hire chiefs of staff at this moment when we’re on a manufactured budgetary cliff?

I would like to echo the concerns of my colleagues, particularly about letter G and a lack of due process. I would also like to point out that the “supervisors” (e.g. those who would oversee said “reductions” or “reorganizations”) for many of us are not individuals we elect or necessarily even agree with, and their supervisory terms can be brief, much briefer than the time faculty members, as one example, dedicate to SLCC. On a similar note, how long do individuals in administrative roles typically hold such roles? It seems very short-sighted to me to create a structure in which an employee on a permanent contract can be laid off (again, with no due process), by individuals occupying temporary positions who are themselves subject to termination with no due process. This proposed policy is a severe blow to academic freedom for one, but academic excellence for another. The quality of student experience will suffer under such a system that very likely will discourage students from enrolling or, if they do enroll, provide them with a lower quality of education obtained in an environment with significantly reduced freedom of expression and academic excellence.

I also find 4.6.d concerning: “No employee may initiate an employee grievance for the loss of employment due to the college’s implementation of the State Board of Higher Education’s approved declaration of financial exigency.”

There are many reasons someone may need to initiate a grievance for loss of employment that may occur in a “financial exigency era” but that may actually be a product of some other discriminatory concern. An individual should be able to initiate a grievance anytime including if it was stated that it was “because of financial exigency.”

I would like to see a section with alternatives to “laying off” employees. These roles represent someone’s livelihood, identity, and future and I’d like to see steps the college can take to avoid just laying people off and know there are steps to navigate this delicate situation with human lives in mind.

4 B. 4. Prioritization, (4) Part-time, temporary, or probationary employees or non-tenured faculty will be laid off before tenured and regular employees. Places SLTech Faculty at a disadvantage, since Tenure has been eliminated for them (except for those who were grandfathered).

I agree with the concerns raised by previous commenters about the removal of protections for tenured faculty, lack of protection for SLTC faculty, concerns about conflicting language, and the need to explicitly state that the college will seek every other option to reduce budget before moving to layoffs of any employees. I also agree with all comments that advocate against removing the grievance process. The grievance process is essential, especially in a policy where so many other protections have been removed.

In section 1 PWC has been added as a major decision-making authority that can “authorize the reorganization or elimination of employee positions.” This seems like an elevation in the authority of PWC, which is a bit concerning given that SLCC’s accreditors have not removed the recommendations for PWC to better ensure fairness, equity, and consistency in multiple areas including conditions of employment and termination. Is PWC becoming a decision-making authority that holds equal weight with administrators over areas facing reorganization or reductions in force, or is PWC’s role solely to consult and ensure that the HR-related policies are followed?

4.A removes several layers of oversight including the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Board of Trustees, and Policy Advisory Committees, and Faculty and Staff governance. It also removes transparency by removing discussion requirements with the appropriate organizational units and subunits within the college. This will render faculty and staff voiceless in the face of a reorganization. Section 5 attempts to address faculty and staff advocacy, but it does so inadequately, especially given recent legislature that stifles Staff and Faculty associations. Presidents and academic leaders of public institutions have a duty to hold themselves accountable to the rest of our college community and engage with all key stakeholders before making such a critical decision. This should be clearly stated in the policy.

6.D.1.b. that allows the college to remove some employees without notice is out of alignment with the mission, vision, and values of the college. Many of our part-time and temporary employees are student workers. If we lay them off without notice, we may render it impossible for them to continue their studies – both paying for tuition and for paying for basic necessities to attend classes and complete work outside of class. We can do better and at least give them the same 28-days of notice that administrators are provided. This would give them time to secure a different job without disrupting their studies.

4.E.1 should maintain the word “will” instead of “may” for recall if a position is made available that they previously occupied within six months.

4.E.2.a disempowers part-time, temporary, and probationary staff from the reinstatement process. What is the rationale for stripping resources and policy support from part-time (often students or former students) workers?

Part-time, temporary, probationary, and at-will employees should still receive notice and payment in lieu of notice. This is especially important because we may set students up to fail if their positions are eliminated without providing time or financial support while they seek alternative employment.

People who qualify for early retirement should have that option, if they are earmarked for downsizing. It would be encouraging to see that in the new policy. Thank you for considering it.

I noticed Weber has implemented early retirement incentives.

I see that the faculty handbook policy is cited several times in this policy. However not in relationship to the administrator’s right to go back to a tenured faculty position.

If an administrator who was a tenured faculty prior to admin appointment, will they be reassigned back to faculty as the current handbook suggests? I think this RIF policy should make that clear, since the guarantee back to faculty is an important aspect of the current admin role policy.

I particularly love section H because of all the options now given to me as the Biology AD. I have been working with faculty to implement highly structured, active learning approaches across all Biology courses. Dr. Smith, a pesky tenured professor, keeps arguing that other research advocates for a different approach and is hesitant to change their course.

Under this policy, I could:

Frame Dr. Smith’s evidence-based concerns as resistance to departmental strategy that is hindering changing department needs

Initiate a reorganization where I shift the courses that instructors teach to make Dr. Smith’s position unnecessary while creating a new need in a different specialty

Meet minimal consultation requirements without meaningful engagement

Present a one-sided narrative to the Dean, Provost, and PWC

With diminished protections and limited appeal options, Dr. Smith would have minimal recourse, despite the situation effectively punishing evidence-based academic discourse.

Now I would never do this, and also think very highly of my fellow associate deans and other SLCC administrators and don’t think they would either. However, in our accreditation review, severe concerns over evaluations and personnel decisions arose. Work has been done, but based on recent conversations in Faculty Senate over campus presence, fear over loss of employment over relatively minor infractions still exists. Clarity in the policy implementation and ensuring protections like a grievance process will go a long way to building psychological safety.

I agree with all of the concerns raised by previous commenters. In particular, the revisions to this policy raise significant concerns about faculty protections. I’m particularly troubled by the removal of language allowing faculty to contest actions based on academic freedom considerations, alongside the introduction of broadly defined reorganization criteria that could be applied subjectively. I am also concerned for SLTC faculty who may not have options for gaining Tenure and their level of protection being diminished. Together, these changes risk creating an environment where faculty might hesitate to engage in candid academic discourse, potentially compromising the educational quality that makes our institution valuable to students and community alike.

On a side note, I am not sure why I would receive exactly 28 days notice as an administrator but others are given at minimum 28 days notice. I imagine someone knowing for 3 months that they are going to fire me but not telling me until 28 days beforehand because the policy says 28 days. I also agree that part time and temporary employees should have advance notice. Surely we know ahead of time if a reduction in force is necessary for financial reasons who will be laid off. We are not coming up with these large scale plans to meet broad financial issues the day before.

Concerns that it doesn’t align to USHE policy R482

• 3.2 Substantial participation of faculty governance
• Not certain Reorganization falls under R482. Just lists Alternative Actions in Financial Situations Less than Financial Exigency and Financial Exigency.
• 3.8 - Doesn’t align to personnel reduction criteria regarding tenured faculty
• 3.11.1-2 - Doesn’t align to notice for tenured and non-tenured faculty

Definitions

• None of the definitions actually address faculty.
• Personnel Definitions don’t address the distinction between tenured and non-tenured faculty.
• The policy regularly refers to staff, but the personnel definitions define staff and non-faculty. As a result faculty are not actually included in many of the provisions of the policy.
• Sections bounce between using staff and employee, but they are defined differently in our personnel definitions

Procedures

• Sections would benefit from reorganization.
  • It talks about financial exigency and then decisions for layoffs and reinstatement and then about alternatives and reorgs. Would make more sense if it first talked about the three reasons for reductions in force and then talks about how those reduction in forces take place.
  • Reassignment section is after Reinstatement but will occur temporally before.
  • Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated is at the highest hierarchy of Procedures. So does it apply to all of the other sections?
• B. Declaration of Financial Exigency Resulting in Layoff of Employees
  • 4 - President may use the following prioritization principles
    • Stronger language, should or must instead of may
    • 4.4 does state that “Part-time, temporary, or probationary employees or non-tenured faculty will be laid off before tenured and regular employees.” but
    • Doesn’t align to definitions above (Regular Staff)
    • Are non-tenured faculty regular employees? So would they fit into both the laid off before and not?
  • 5 - Shared governance
    • Does Faculty Senate not have a role?
    • Since it is under Financial exigency, is their no required shared governance in alternative situations or reorganizations? That is inconsistent with USHE policy.
    • Does this amount to “substantial participation” as required in USHE policy?
• C. Determination of Which Positions Should Be Eliminated
  • Stronger word than May
• D. Notice of Layoff Resulting from a Reduction in Force
  • 1.a.3. As written that will apply to adjuncts, instructors and temporary faculty.
• G. Budget Plan Including a Reduction in Force Without the Declaration of Financial Exigency
  • There is no discussion about how the decision is made. Is there any effort to maintain the mission of the college?
  • 2.c - Is this talking about staff, employee, faculty? As written it isn’t clear. Section f is all about elimination of non-tenure track faculty, but this doesn’t make any distinction around tenured faculty.
  • 3 - Similar to B.5 above. I don’t think this is substantial participation in shared governance.
• H. Reorganization
  • 1 - Intro sentence mentions support of the college’s mission, but none of the sub-bullets actually are focused on the college’s mission.
    • Does this section apply to faculty? I think so given the use of employee but the document has been so inconsistent.
    • D What does this even mean?
    • E Restructuring. Isn’t this a circular argument? We need to reorganize because we restructured.
  • 2 -
    • A - Stronger word than May
    • No information on the criteria for this plan. Are the factors listed in 4.B.2.c or C applicable?
    • B - Section is too specific to be policy. Should be a departmental rule.
  • 3 - H.1 has no mention of new positions resulting from reorganization. Should be added to be consistent.
    • A - to be parallel to the rest of the document “The replacement positions must significantly differ from positions to be eliminated.”
• I Payment in Lieu of Notice
  • The rest of the document refers to layoff, but this section talks about termination. Will payment in lieu of notice apply to terminations beyond the scope of this document? But then the Timelines of notice only refers to layoffs.
  • 3 - this section is too specific to be policy. Should be a departmental rule.

Other:

• No longer an ability to contest a layoff. Old policy IV.A.13
• This seems to reduce the protections around tenure. Previously, reorganization didn’t include faculty, now it looks like it does.

I’m providing feedback regarding the Reduction in Force policy revisions as they relate to long-term telecommuting arrangements. As an employee who has served SLCC for 15 years total (3 years on-site followed by 12 years remote) under an approved indefinite telecommuting agreement, I have specific concerns:

1. Established Performance Record: Throughout my 15-year tenure with SLCC, I have handled my responsibilities flawlessly, meeting all performance expectations and departmental objectives while working remotely for the past 12 years. My work performance evaluations and outcomes demonstrate that remote work has not diminished my productivity or effectiveness.
2. Institutional Knowledge Retention: Long-term employees like myself possess valuable institutional knowledge and historical context that benefit the college. Forcing a change that might lead to departure of experienced remote employees could result in significant knowledge loss.
3. Cost Considerations: My remote arrangement has saved the college resources in terms of office space, utilities, and facilities usage for 12 years. A cost-benefit analysis of requiring on-site work should be considered before terminating successful remote arrangements.
4. Environmental Impact: Remote work arrangements support SLCC’s sustainability goals by reducing commuting-related carbon emissions. This aligns with the college’s broader environmental commitments.
5. Employee Well-being and Retention: Abrupt changes to long-established work arrangements can negatively impact employee morale, work-life balance, and potentially lead to unintended turnover of experienced staff, which could disrupt operations and increase recruitment costs.
6. Technological Investments: Both the college and I have invested in technology and systems that enable effective remote work. These investments and the associated training represent significant resources that would be underutilized by mandating on-site work.
7. Precedent and Consistency: After 12 years of successful remote work, suddenly requiring on-site presence without clear operational justification may create perceptions of arbitrary policy implementation.
8. Grandfather Clause Consideration: I suggest including provisions for grandfathering or exemption considerations for employees with extensive history of successful remote work, particularly when the arrangement has been in place for more than a decade, as in my case.
9. Policy Clarity: The policy should explicitly clarify whether terminating remote work arrangements falls under ‘reorganization’ as defined in section H, and provide specific procedures for addressing long-standing remote agreements.

I respectfully request that the committee consider these aspects when finalizing this policy. My 15 years of dedicated service to SLCC, including 12 years of successful remote work, demonstrates both my commitment to the college and the viability of this work arrangement.

Thank you for considering my comprehensive feedback!

I completely agree with the many concerns expressed in the comments above.

Also, I realize that this policy will be undergoing another revision and we will have the opportunity to comment again.

I will only reiterate one key point - this policy allows supervisors to terminate employees for any number of reasons besides financial exigency and there will be no recourse to investigate whether this claim is valid. Someone could lose their job because of intellectual disagreement or retaliation from a supervisor. In the current oppressive political climate in which some people in power are attempting to ban ideologies, this policy is terrifying.

The Joint Faculty/Staff Policy Review Committee and several additional faculty and staff met to discuss the Reduction in Force policy. There were a number of serious concerns that the committee had with the draft policy. One committee member has prepared a proposed draft revised policy which is attached and should be reviewed carefully for specific wording changes and conceptual concerns. In addition, the Faculty Association, Staff Association and Faculty Senate President provided concerns to Vice President Chris Martin. Those comments were sent to the Policy Coordinator to share with the policy originator and sponsor.

The Committee’s primary concern with the draft policy are as follows:

1. The draft policy does not protect tenured faculty as set forth in R83.
2. The draft policy does not provide clear guidance for how Salt Lake Tech instructors will be treated.
3. The prioritization section needs to be better clarified.
4. There needs to be more Faculty Association and Staff Association involvement in the process to provide a check and balance to supervisors.
5. The Appeal and Grievance Rights should be re-inserted into the policy.
6. The term “serious disruption” needs to be defined.
7. The attempt to make this policy shorter by consolidating sections and impacted faculty and staff distinct rights. Each labor unit needs to be addressed separately in the policy rather than jointly.
8. Part-Time Staff should receive 28-day notice and retaining them should be a priority.
9. Considerable Fear that this policy will be abused by Supervisors who want to target employees they don’t like.
10. Replace the term “may” with “shall or will” in the policy to remove management’s discretion.

Finally, this memorandum will provide a higher-level review of significant concerns and recommended revisions which are as follows:

1. Policy Statement-General Comments

1. Both committee faculty and staff members believe that given the significant changes that are necessary that an additional 15-day comment period should be provided for this policy once proposed revisions have been added or deleted to the policy. On March 25, 2025, the President stated at his forum that there will be another 15-day comment period.
2. There was a belief that the draft policy consolidated faculty and staff into one group. These different groups should be clearly identified and discussed in a separate manner throughout the policy. Given this consolidation, there was concern about the policy’s organization which lead to confusion.
3. Like the prior comments, there was a recommendation to create two separate policies. One policy would involve faculty, and the second policy would involve staff.
4. A significant concern was with Salt Lake Tech instructors’ status. They are not considered faculty, but they are not really staff either. The Committee maintains that there should be express provision that for the purposes of the policy that Salt Lake Tech instructors are considered faculty. So, with regards to notice of termination due to reduction in force, Salt Lake Tech instructors, like faculty, should be given six months- notice.
5. In Salt Lake Tech, there is an “Ed to Go” program. It involves private contractor who does construction at the college. In a reduction in force or reorganization scenario, this program should be the first to go before Salt Lake Tech employees are terminated.
6. The Committee maintains that, as drafted, the proposed policy does not protect tenure rights as set out in R482-3.3 which states that only non-tenured faculty positions and elimination of tenured faculty only when an entire unit or program is discontinued can be eliminated. The committee notes that R482-3.1 seems to allow the institution to “curtail, modify, or eliminate units, subunits, departments, programs, course, or functions due to unfavorable economic conditions. In addition, R482-3.8.1 addresses “retention of non-tenured faculty when tenured faculty are dismissed” and “new faculty appointments when tenured faculty are dismissed” which implies that partial faculty layoff may occur in a department.

2. References

No Comments

3. Definitions

1. Definitions should be added for the following terms:
   1. Employees of Key Importance; and
   2. Substantial Distortion.
   3. These terms are used in R483 section 3.8. Serious distortion is defined in R483.3.8.3.
2. A definition for reduction in force should be added to the policy. R843-3.2 includes a definition for this phrase, however this policy only addresses reduction in staff for staff not faculty.

4. Procedures

A. Prioritization-section 4.B.4

1. In section 4.B.4, a section should be added requiring the president to consult with the Faculty and Staff Associations prior to making reduction in force recommendations. Both Associations have concerned that poor or unethical supervisors will use the reduction in force policy to get rid of employees they do not like. There needs to be a check and balance over these supervisors.
2. In section 4.B.4.a(4), there should be a prioritization factor to keep part-time employees. There was belief that part-time employees were invaluable to the college’s operations and some part-time employees have been at the college for 20+ years.
3. In section 4.B.4 and 4.H.1 addressing prioritization and reorganization, it was recommended that the policy be revised to provide additional clarity for issues such as who makes the decision.
4. In section 4.B.5, the Faculty Association and Staff Association time to provide recommendations to the President should be increased from 5 days to 10 days.

B. Notice of Layoff-Section 4.D

1. In Section 4.D.1, it is recommended that part-time staff also be provided 28 calendar days’ notice.
2. In the President’s Forum on March 25 at the Miller Campus, he indicated that notice for administrators and staff would be increased to 90 days.
3. In Section IV. A.11.d(6) of the current policy, employees whose positions are terminated have the right to reconsideration or appeal of the decision. The current draft policy does not provide this appeal right, this appeal right should be added to the draft policy. The committee believes that the college President should make the decisions on the appeals or reconsideration.

C. Reinstatement-Section 4.E

1. In Section 4.E.1 addressing Reinstatement, it states that “the affected employee may be recalled for reinstatement.” The committee recommends that be revised from “may” to “shall.” In addition, the word “may” is used 28 times in the draft policy, the committee felt some provisions using “may” should be replaced with “shall” or “will.”

D. Reassignment of Employees-Section 4.F.

1. In section 4.F.1, it states that “the affected employee must apply for the vacant position and be selected by the supervisor. In the President’s March 25 forum at the Miller Campus. He stated that employees would be move to an alternative position which constitutes a lateral transfer without having to go through a hiring process. The President’s statement contradicts this policy section. Given that several laid off employees may be competing for the same position, consideration should be given to keeping a hiring process. There have been recent complaints about failure to follow the hiring process at the college. The committee did not discuss it, but Gabe identified this issue during the President’s Forum, and it was added.

E. Reorganization-Section 4.H

1. In Section 4.H addressing Reorganization, it was recommended that language be added that there must be consultation with the Faculty Association and Staff Association. Comments were made that this consultation language was dropped out of the current policy. This consultation language does not appear to be in the current policy. See section IV. D.)
2. In Section 4.H.1 addressing Reorganization, some Committee members that tenured faculty could not lose their position in a reorganization. In support of this position, reference was made to R482-3.3 which seems to limit “alternative actions in financial situations less than financial exigency” to 1) elimination of non-tenured faculty positions; and 2) bona fide program or unit discontinuance. For example, if an academic department needs only 4 tenured faculty instead of 7 tenured faculty, no tenured faculty can be terminated unless that whole unit or program is discontinued. Draft policy section 4.H.1 would allow those 3 tenured faculties to be terminated. The Committee maintains USHE policy R482 does not allow this. This section contradicts USHE R481. That is the Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, Tenure, Termination, and Post-Tenure Review policy. Section 3.9 reads:

   3.9 Dismissing Faculty for Reasons Other Than Cause: A faculty member may be dismissed for reasons other than cause as a result of:
   3.9.1 Bona fide program or unit discontinuance as provided in subsection 3.10; or
   3.9.2 Bona fide financial exigency as provided in Board Policy R482, Bona Fide Financial Exigency and Personnel Reduction.

   The committee’s read of that is pretty clear. Tenured faculty cannot be fired for departmental reorganization.

3. In Section 4.H.2.d(2), there was significant concern that supervisors would use reorganization in lieu of corrective action and that there needed to be a check and balance on supervisors to not abuse their powers.
4. In Section 4.H.2, the Committee recommends that the President rather than the Vice President must approve the layoff of any staff and non-tenured faculty member. As for tenured faculty, the Board of Trustees must approve layoff of these faculty.
5. In Section IV.D.11 of the current policy, regular staff members have a Level 3 grievance right which effectively provides them a grievance hearing. The proposed draft has eliminated that right. This grievance hearing right should be re-inserted in the policy.