The University of Iowa Faculty Council voted to pass a revision to a section of the university’s faculty policy, which has been in the works since May, in a regular meeting Tuesday.

The policy revision specifically affects Section III.10 of the policy, pertaining primarily to tenure and the process of tenure review.

A review plan for tenured faculty is outlined in the revision and is a necessary update to the policy language rewritten several times since its introduction in the 1970s, Faculty Senate President Caroline Sheerin said at the meeting.

“This section of the policy manual has been written and modified at various points over the past 50 years,” she said. “And not in a way that has necessarily led to cohesive text.”

The revision will add a new part of the tenure review process in which the possibility of an “out of cycle” review can be initiated by the Office of the Vice President and Provost in addition to routine tenure reviews.

A tenured faculty member has “significant and ongoing” prior attempts to improve performance that must not be met for the out-of-cycle review to be considered, according to the new policy language. However, two annual reviews must pass and be unsuccessful to trigger a review.

The policy has provisions to support tenured faculty under review, such as the opportunity to appeal the prescribed development plan with the provost and their respective dean.

The Faculty Policies and Compensation Committee originally voted on the policy change with only one of seven members voting a one out of five, which means the member disagrees with and would prefer to veto the change.

Faculty Policies and Compensation Committee Chair Doris Witt presented this information to the council, saying the one member who disapproved had concerns the new review opportunities would create cost issues spawned from unnecessary review processes.

Additionally, concerns were raised that academic freedom would be compromised in a situation where tenured professors feel the need to alter their course material under the perceived threat of review.

Witt concluded by saying she is glad the FPCC could have open discussions to encourage academic strength.

“I actually think it’s a sign of a really healthy shared governance ecosystem that the members felt able to dwell on the complexity of their responses,” she said.