Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28B.50.856 (2026)

Faculty tenure—Evaluation of probationer by review committee—Progress report, acknowledgment of receipt—Recommendation as to tenure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The probationary faculty appointment period shall be one of continuing evaluation of a probationer by a review committee. The evaluation process shall place primary importance upon the probationer's effectiveness in his or her appointment. The review committee shall periodically advise each probationer, in writing, of his or her progress during the probationary period and receive the probationer's written acknowledgment thereof. The review committee shall at appropriate times make recommendations to the appointing authority as to whether tenure should or should not be granted to individual probationers: PROVIDED, That the final decision to award or withhold tenure shall rest with the appointing authority, after it has given reasonable consideration to the recommendations of the review committee.

[ 2011 c 336 s 741; 1969 ex.s. c 283 s 36. Formerly RCW 28.85.856.]

Notes:

Severability—1969 ex.s. c 283: See note following RCW 28A.150.050.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1975–1983 · leading case: Smith v. Greene, 545 P.2d 550 (Wash. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. Greene, 545 P.2d 550 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 6× “Appellant asserts that RCW 28B.50.856, requiring the trustees to give “reasonable consideration” to the review committee’s recommendations when deciding on an award of tenure, injects accountability into the tenure process and creates a “property interest” by *369 virtue of…”

Eyre v. Big Bend Cmty. Coll., 672 P.2d 1270 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “It argues the arbitrator's award not only violated state law, but exceeded the scope of the arbitrator's authority under the CBA and the court order compelling arbitration. We disagree with BBCC.”

Rutcosky v. Bd. of Trs., 545 P.2d 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “851 provides: “(1) ‘Tenure’ shall mean a faculty appointment for an indefinite period of time which may be revoked only for adequate cause and by due process;” RCW 28B.50.856 provides in pertinent part: .”

Causey v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. V, 638 P.2d 98 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Even if we assume arguendo that declining enrollment was the only criterion the board used in denying Causey tenure, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in Upholding the denial of tenure. The 1979 contract reduction-in-force procedure was not the exclusive method to…”

McLachlan v. Tacoma Cmty. Coll., 541 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “As such, they were entitled to continuing evaluation by a review committee composed primarily of their faculty peers, RCW 28B.50.856, and to notice on or before the last day of *375 the winter quarter of the district’s decision not to renew their appointments.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.