Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

POLICY TITLE: Faculty Evaluation and Termination Policy

VOLUME, SECTION & NUMBER: 1.1.16

ENTITIES AFFECTED: Faculty

ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY: Division of Academic & Student Affairs

APPROVED BY: INTERIM (Expires in 6 months)

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2026

REVISED FROM: October 1, 2026, Version of Policy

POLICY STATEMENT:

According to House Bill 250, Section 1(g) (2023), Senate Bill 185 (2026) and House Bill 490 (2026) amending KRS 164.360, the following revised process regarding a faculty performance review of term, tenured, and tenure-track faculty and dismissal of faculty at Kentucky State University is adopted, effective October 1, 2026, and revised, effective October 1, 2026. Kentucky State University asserts the performance evaluation system is designed to share with faculty a clear understanding of their performance within the three evaluation cycles for term, tenured, and tenure-track faulty. Additionally, pursuant to KRS 164.360(6)(a), a faculty member may be removed by the Board of Regents for bona fide financial reasons, including but not limited to financial exigency; low enrollment in a particular program or major; or misalignment of revenue and costs in a particular college, department, program or major. Pursuant to KRS 164.360(6)(b) the process shall require that no faculty member is removed until after thirty (30) days notice in writing, stating the reason for removal, and after an opportunity has been given to the faculty member to respond before the board by counsel or otherwise and to introduce testimony which shall be heard and determined by the Board as set forth in the Procedures attached and incorporated herein as Appendix A.

As stated in House Bill 250, subparagraph 2 of Section 1(g), “The process shall ensure a consistently high level of employee performance and shall include, but not be limited to, assessments by peers, students, and administrators. In addition to evaluating an employee’s effectiveness, growth, accomplishments, and skills, the process shall be used to identify deficiencies and ineffectiveness and redirect employee efforts to improve or increase productivity. The process shall be used as a basis for decisions on continued employment, promotion, salary increases, tenure, and maintenance of tenure; . . .the review process for tenured faculty shall include an evaluation of teaching effectiveness, research body of work, overall commitment to the mission of the university, and other criteria determined by the board and the council.”

Based on the HB 250 mandate, Kentucky State University's process addressing the performance evaluation of faculty ensures that processes are clearly articulated and published and are available to all persons in the university community. The process reflects Kentucky State University's set performance standards and respects the uniqueness of disciplines within the university. It also provides for flexibility at the college- and school-levels to establish expectations beyond the university performance standards.

DEFINITIONS:

Calendar Day will be defined as a date no later than the specified number of calendar days following the day of notification. If the final calendar day occurs on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be on the first day university administrative offices are open following the final calendar day. The time for response may be extended upon agreement by both parties.

Collegiality is the ability of an individual to interact with colleagues with civility and professional respect; to engage in shared academic and administrative tasks productively with faculty, students, and staff. Collegiality should not be confused with sociability or likability.

Confidentiality is the principle of limiting access to information or documents only to those persons authorized to have such access. Documents and communications in the evaluation, tenure, and promotion processes will be confidential to the extent permitted by law.

Term Faculty refers to an instructor, a replacement for a regular faculty member, a person on short-term assignment, an adjunct professor, or a visiting faculty member.

Full-time Tenure-track Faculty describes a faculty member employed full time who is eligible for tenure or in a pre-tenure probationary period.

Provost refers to the chief academic officer or his/her designee.

Dean refers to an administrative faculty member who oversees a college where schools are housed and who reports to the provost.

Chair refers to an administrative faculty member overseeing a school where majors and programs are housed and who reports to the dean of the college.

Unit/School refers to the academic programs that reside under one chair within a college.

PROCESS AND STANDARDS:

Faculty at Kentucky State University are evaluated annually on the performance standards in three areas: teaching effectiveness and high-impact practices in scholarship, and university and community service. Furthermore, faculty are contractually bound to meet the service expectations listed on their faculty contract addendum. The type of annual performance evaluation conducted depends on the nature of the faculty member's contract, rank, and tenure status. The annual review includes four rating categories, as identified below:

• “Exceeds Expectations” has a numerical value equal to three (3) points;
• “Meets Expectations” has a numerical value equal to two (2) points;

• “Needs Improvement” has a numerical value equal to one (1) point; and
• “Unsatisfactory” has a numerical value equal to zero (0). A faculty member will not earn any points toward their performance in this area.

University performance standards for faculty evaluations include the following (additional standards can be set by the college, unit, or school within the discipline):

Teaching effectiveness: Faculty members are evaluated on their ability to effectively deliver course content and engage students in authentic and active learning. This includes the use of appropriate teaching methods, the ability to create and use effective assessments, and the ability to provide meaningful feedback to students.

Scholarship and research: Faculty members are evaluated on their ability to conduct and publish scholarly research and contribute to their fields of expertise. This includes the quality and quantity of publications, presentations, and other scholarly creative activities.

Professional development: Faculty members are evaluated on their ability to stay current in their fields and engage in professional development activities. This includes attending and presenting at conferences, participating in workshops, and taking courses to maintain and improve their skills and knowledge.

University and community service: Faculty members are evaluated on their ability to contribute to the school or unit, college, and university community. This includes service on committees, participation in school or unit and college-wide activities, and engagement with the community.

Goals and objectives: Faculty members are evaluated on their ability to meet the goals and objectives set for them in their job description and by their employer. This includes specific targets and goals related to teaching, research, university and community service, and professional development.

Compliance: Faculty members are evaluated on their compliance with institutional, college, and school or unit policies and procedures.

Student, Peer and Supervisor evaluations: Faculty members are evaluated on their performance through student evaluations, peer evaluations, and supervisor evaluations.

These standards can vary depending on the college, school or unit, and discipline, but generally should be aligned with the goals of the institution.

STANDARDS:

Kentucky State University performance standards are designed to support the mission, vision, and values of this institution as well as promoting continuous growth and improvement of faculty members. Each rank and tenure status potentially earned by faculty members has performance standards commensurate with the rank or tenure status desired.

Kentucky State University performance evaluation standards are designed to ensure continuous growth and improvement among all faculty at the university. The university evaluation performance standards are set as baseline expectations for demonstrated teaching effectiveness, high-impact practices in scholarship, as well as institutional service and professional development for term, tenured, and tenure-track faculty.

Kentucky State University Evaluation Performance Standards define the minimum criteria for meeting expectations within the evaluation system for term, tenured, and tenure-track faculty. The standards reflect the progression associated with the rank or tenure status desired. The following information outlines the performance standards across the areas of teaching effectiveness, high-impact practices in scholarship, university and community service, as well as contractual obligations.

• Exceeds Expectations – the faculty member has demonstrated accomplishments and achievements reflecting a significant level beyond what is expected by the university, college, or school including faculty rank and contractual obligations within the unit discipline.
• Meets Expectations – the faculty member has demonstrated accomplishments and achievements reflecting and commensurate with the university, college, or school including faculty rank and contractual obligations within the unit discipline.
• Needs Improvement – the faculty member has not completely demonstrated or met the expectations defined by the university, college, or school including faculty rank and contractional obligations within the unit discipline.
• Unsatisfactory – the faculty member failed to meet expectations defined by the university, college, or school including faculty rank and contractional obligations within the unit discipline.
• Accomplishments – refer to specific, measurable actions or tasks that a faculty member has completed during the evaluation period. These may include things like publishing research papers, developing new curriculum, or receiving grant funding. Accomplishments are often tangible and can be easily quantified.
• Achievements – refer to the overall impact or results that a faculty member has had in their role. These may include things like improving programs and student learning outcomes, increasing student engagement, or fostering a positive departmental culture. Achievements are more qualitative in nature and may be harder to quantify.

Faculty members who are designated as “Needs Improvement” in any or all categories must complete an improvement plan. Any faculty receiving an unsatisfactory in any or all categories shall be subject to university sanctions including but not limited to dismissal.

RELATED POLICES & DOCUMENTS:

Appendix A: HB 250 Performance Review Process of All Faculty

Appendix A

Academic Regulation: HB 250 Performance Review Process of All Faculty

Statement

According to House Bill 250, Section 1(g), effective April 8, 2022, the following process regarding a faculty performance review during the 2022 calendar year of term, tenured and tenure-track faculty at Kentucky State University is adopted, effective January 1, 2024.

As stated in HB 250, subparagraph 2 of Section 1(g), “The process shall ensure a consistently high level of employee performance and shall include, but not be limited to, assessments by peers, students, and administrators. In addition to evaluating an employee’s growth, accomplishments, and skills, the process shall be used to identify deficiencies and ineffectiveness and redirect employee efforts to improve or increase productivity. The process shall be used as a basis for decisions on continued employment, promotion, salary increases, tenure, and maintenance of tenure; . . . the review process for tenured faculty shall include an evaluation of teaching effectiveness, research body of work, overall commitment to the mission of the university, and other criteria determined by the board and the council.”

Determining a faculty member in “good standing” is based on documented and verifiable evidence using university performance standards.

Based on the HB 250 mandate, Kentucky State University's new process addressing the calendar year performance evaluation of faculty ensures that processes are clearly articulated and published and are available to all persons in the university community. The process respects the uniqueness of disciplines within the university and provides appropriate, professional, and flexibility at college and school levels.

Entities Affected

• College and University-level Administrators
• ■ Schools
• Tenured Faculty
• Tenure-Track Faculty
• Term Faculty
• ■ Provost

Principles

The revised performance review process at each administrative level shall include appropriate evaluations of performance in teaching, scholarship, and service. The evaluation shall be a part of the individual's evaluation file housed in the Office of Academic Affairs and Human Resources, with a copy to the faculty member, school chair, and dean.

The review process at each level shall be limited to professionally relevant considerations and shall include documented evidence of performance from the faculty member, students, other faculty, and college- and university-level administrators. The documented evidence shall be a part of the individual's evaluation dossier.

Criteria

Faculty shall be evaluated on their teaching, research, and service performance for the calendar year using established discipline guidelines. This HB 250 mandate stipulates a performance review process that will include all tenured, tenure-track, and term faculty.

In reviewing all three areas of faculty performance (quality of teaching effectiveness, quality of professional development and scholarly achievement, and quality of service and community contribution), faculty appointments that are reassigned to the administration, library, research or extension will be evaluated according to their annual contracts and distribution of effort agreements. Faculty may include scholarly achievements from January to December in the professional growth and scholarly achievement category only.

Academic discipline areas may articulate expectations beyond the minimum to meet professional accrediting and/or certification criteria.

Procedures

Conducting Evaluations for Faculty

General Guidelines for Evaluations:

• a.All evaluations are conducted ethically, with recommendations and justifications based on relevant documented and verifiable information.
• b.Administrative reviewers (school chair, college dean, and provost) will ensure the performance standard evaluation recommendations are consistent with the goals and needs of the university, as well as the areas within their scope of responsibility.
• c.The faculty member will have a dossier consultation with their chair by the First Friday in February.
• d.Faculty must submit evidence of their teaching, research, and service performance in dossiers to their school chair by the Second Friday in February. The performance areas will contain three categories: (1) Evidence of Quality Teaching Effectiveness, (2) Evidence of Quality Professional Growth and Scholarly Achievement, and (3) Evidence of Quality Service and Community Contribution.
• e.The performance evaluation item ratings are scored as follows:
• Exceeds Expectations (3)
• Meets Expectations (2)
• ■ Needs Improvement (1)
• Unsatisfactory (0)

Additionally, the school chair will collect information on the compliance of the faculty with the annual executed contract and include this information in the performance evaluation. Compliance infractions will require a faculty performance improvement plan and each category of noncompliance will result in a three-point reduction (-3) from the faculty member's performance assessment.

Faculty with predominantly administrative, research, extension, or library appointments will be weighted according to the faculty member's contract.

• f.Full-time term faculty (temporary, non-tenure track, instructor, lecturer, or visiting professor) will be evaluated according to their contract for teaching, scholarly work, and service requirements. Term faculty will be evaluated under the standards for adjunct faculty and are not subject to the process below.
• g.The dossier will be submitted via Interfolio to the faculty member's school chair by the Second Friday in February. The school chair evaluates faculty performance objectives by following the university's standards for teaching and learning, research and creative artifacts, and service and compliance standards. After receipt of the materials, the school chair shall state in writing their overall recommendation for either "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory."

Performance Exceeds Expectations or Meets Expectations

• a.The school chair sends the performance review to the college dean for review and recommendation and to the faculty for their records by the First Friday in March. The faculty member may respond to the recommendation with comments within five days. The dean shall review the dossier, including faculty comments, and provide recommendations. The college dean sends the performance review to the provost for approval by the First Friday in April, and the approved review is sent to the faculty member, dean, and school chair for their records.
• b.If any category under the performance review “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” or if there are compliance infractions, see the relevant performance section below.

Performance Needs Improvement

• a.If any category under the performance review has a performance “needs improvement,” then a faculty performance improvement plan would be required.
• b.The school chair sends the performance review to the faculty member and college dean by the First Friday in March. The faculty must develop and submit a one-year faculty performance improvement plan, working with the school chair, to be submitted to the school chair for an approval recommendation by the Third Friday in March. The school chair sends their approved recommendation, the performance improvement plan, and the other performance review documents, by the First Friday in April, to the college dean for review and recommendation. The college dean sends their recommendation by the Third Friday in April, along with all the other performance review documents to the provost for approval and the approved plan and review are sent to the faculty member, college dean, and school chair for their records.
• c.For faculty members who do not submit a performance review, do not develop and obtain an approved performance improvement plan, or fail to implement a performance plan, the provost could recommend sanctions up to dismissal for the faculty member.
• d.If there are compliance infractions, the faculty member must sign a Compliance Statement in accordance with their annual executed contract. If the faculty member does not sign the infraction agreement, the provost could recommend sanctions up to dismissal for the faculty member.

Performance Is Unsatisfactory

• a.For tenured and tenure-track faculty where there is an unsatisfactory performance in any category under review, the school chair will send the performance review document and their recommendation to the faculty for their comments by the First Friday in March. Faculty members may respond to the recommendation within five days.
• b.The school chair will forward the performance review document, along with their recommendation and the faculty's response to the college dean and the faculty member, by the Third Friday in March. The college dean will review the materials and send his/her recommendation to the provost for review and decision by the First Friday in April.
• c.If the provost finds that a faculty performance improvement plan is warranted, then the provost sends the decision to the school chair and the faculty member by the Third Friday in April, notifying them that the faculty member must develop and submit a one-year faculty performance improvement plan to the school chair by the First Friday in May. The school chair sends their approved recommendation, the faculty performance improvement plan, and the other performance review documents, by the Second Friday in May, to the dean for review. The dean will send all documents and their recommendation by the Third Friday in May to the provost for review and approval by the provost. The provost sends their decision by the Fourth Friday in May, along with all the other performance review documents, to the faculty member, college dean, and school chair for their records.
• d.If there are compliance infractions, the faculty member must sign a Compliance Statement in accordance with their annual executed contract. If the faculty member does not sign the infraction agreement, the provost could recommend sanctions up to dismissal for the faculty member.
• e.If the provost finds that the faculty performance warrants sanctions and the faculty member is tenure-track, the provost will send all the faculty performance evaluation documents and the provost's review/recommendation for sanctions, up to dismissal, to the president and to the faculty member by the First Friday in May. If the sanction recommendation is for dismissal, the president reviews the recommendation, and sends his/her final determination decision to the and the provost by the Third Friday in May.
• f.If the provost finds that the faculty performance warrants sanctions, and the faculty member is tenured, the provost will send all the faculty performance evaluation documents and the provost's review/recommendation for sanctions including, up to dismissal, to the faculty member by the Third Friday in April. The faculty member may appeal to the recommendation by the Fourth Friday in April to the provost. The provost will send the recommendation for sanctions and the faculty appeal to the president and to the faculty member by the First Friday in May. The president reviews the recommendation and makes a determination. For sanctions other than dismissal, the president's determination is final and is sent to the provost, faculty member, college dean, and school chair.
• g.In the event of a recommendation for dismissal, the president, by the Third Friday in May, sends his/her recommendation along with the faculty's written appeal to the Board of Regents (BOR) for final determination. The BOR will send the final decision on dismissal to the president, who will then send a letter to the faculty member, with copies sent to the college dean and chair, notifying them of the BOR decision.

SANCTIONS

Sanctions may include reassignment of duties, a salary reduction, a reduction in rank, a leave of absence, or other appropriate measures, including dismissal as provided in Policy 2.8.5 Termination. Sanctions could include dismissal with a 30-day notice per HB 250 section 1b.

The Faculty Performance Improvement Plan

Faculty performance improvement plans shall be for a maximum of one year. Additional time may be considered by the provost.

The development plan shall

1. Identify specific concerns to be addressed;
2. Define specific objectives to remedy the concerns that are reasonable and measurable;
3. Outline the activities required to achieve the objectives;
4. Set timelines, with specific milestones throughout the plan, for achieving the objectives;
5. State the criteria for progress reviews and for completion of the plan; and
6. Identify sources of funding required to implement the plan, if necessary.

Assessment of the Faculty Performance Improvement Plan

1. At each milestone in the faculty performance improvement plan, the school chair shall assess the achievement of the stated objectives. If a milestone objective has not been satisfactorily met, the chair shall notify the faculty member in writing. The chair may recommend the faculty member continue with the development plan or may recommend a sanction. If a sanction is recommended, the chair shall forward the recommendation and the report to the dean. The recommendation of sanction shall then follow steps 5-8 below.
2. Within 30 calendar days of the conclusion of the faculty performance improvement plan, the chair shall assess the achievement of the stated objectives and shall write a report indicating how each objective was achieved or not achieved. The chair can make one of two findings:
3. a.the faculty member has fulfilled the development plan objectives and the review period has been completed with an overall satisfactory rating, or
4. b.the faculty member has continued performance deficiencies.
3. The chair shall submit the report to the dean.
4. If the dean concurs with a finding that the development plan has been fulfilled, the faculty member will resume the normal annual review cycle. If the chair does not concur with a finding that the development plan has been fulfilled or concurs with a finding that the faculty member has continued performance deficiencies, within ten calendar days, the chair will indicate in writing with a justification and a recommendation of a sanction. The chair will forward his/her recommendation, the chair's report, and all supporting materials to the dean.
5. Within ten calendar days, the chair shall state in writing whether they concur with the recommendation for sanction; if the chair does not concur with the recommendation for sanction, the chair shall state in writing the reasons for the differing recommendation. The chair shall forward all recommendations and all supporting materials to the dean of the faculty member's college.

6. Within ten calendar days, the dean shall state in writing whether he/she concurs with the recommendation for sanction; if the dean does not concur with the recommendation for sanction, the dean shall state in writing the reasons for the differing recommendation. The dean shall forward the chair's report, all recommendations, and all supporting materials to the provost.
7. Within ten calendar days, the provost shall notify the faculty member in writing, with a copy to the dean and the chair, whether he/she concurs with the recommendation for sanction. If the provost does not concur with the recommendation for sanction, the provost shall state in writing the reasons for the differing decision.
8. The faculty member may appeal the provost's decision to the Faculty Evaluation Appeals Committee within ten calendar days of notification of the provost's decision.

Definitions

Calendar Day will be defined as a date no later than the specified number of calendar days following the day of notification. If the final calendar day occurs on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be on the first-day university administrative offices are open. The time for response may be extended upon agreement by both parties.

Collegiality is the ability of an individual to interact with colleagues with civility and professional respect; to engage in shared academic and administrative tasks productively with faculty, students, and staff. Collegiality should not be confused with sociability or likability but rather is the professional criterion relating to teaching, scholarly/creative activities, and service.

Confidentiality is the principle of limiting access to information or documents only to those persons authorized to have such access. Documents and communications in the evaluation, tenure, and promotion processes will be confidential to the extent permitted by law.

Term Faculty refers to an instructor, a replacement for a regular faculty member, a person on short-term assignment, adjunct, lecturer, instructor and visiting faculty member.

Full-time tenure track Faculty describes a faculty member employed full-time who is tenured, eligible for tenure, or in a pre-tenure probationary period.

Provost refers to the chief academic officer or his/her designee.

Dean refers to an administrative faculty member who oversees a college where schools are housed and who reports to the provost.

Chair refers to an administrative faculty member overseeing a school where majors and programs are housed and reports to the dean of the college.

Unit/School refers to the academic programs that reside under one chair within a college.

Responsibilities

School Chair/Unit Administrator

At a minimum, the chair/unit administrator is responsible for the following:

• informing the faculty of policies, procedures, and criteria for the faculty performance evaluation
• conducting the school/unit level review and evaluation as outlined in this policy specific to the timeframe directed herein regarding HB 250
• making recommendations to the dean regarding faculty performance or sanctions

College Dean

At a minimum, the college dean is responsible for the following:

• ■ notifying the faculty in writing of such decisions
• ensuring all evaluation materials are submitted to the provost on time

Faculty Member

At a minimum, the faculty member being evaluated is responsible for the following:

• knowing and adhering to the principles and criteria outlined in this policy and the executed annual faculty contract
• submitting a dossier and other applicable materials by the established University deadline Provost At a minimum, the provost is responsible for the following:

Provost

At a minimum, the provost is responsible for the following:

• ensuring the criteria applied in the evaluation is consistent with the terms of agreement established in writing at the faculty member's initial appointment in a tenure-track position

KSU Annual Faculty Performance Review Process

KRS 164.360 Faculty Termination Hearing Procedures

All written materials for the Board of Regents review, including the charging documents and the Faculty member's response, if any, shall be sent to the Board Secretary and a carbon copy is sent to the party or party representative(s), if known, no later than five (5) days before the hearing. A witness list may also be submitted by both the University and the Faculty member no later than five (5) days before the hearing to the Board Secretary, and a copy is provided to the party or party representative(s), if known.

Generally, hearings will follow the order of business listed below, variations may occur depending on the circumstances of the individual cases:

• I.Call meeting to Order and Introductions;
• The Chair of the Board or their delegate will serve as the hearing officer;
• The Hearing Officer explains the process to the Board of Regents ("Hearing Committee" or "Committee");
• The Kentucky State University ("University") shall serve as the charging party (or their representative, advisor, or legal counsel) may make an opening statement (no more than 10 minutes) and shall read the official charges;
• The University faculty member (or their legal counsel) may make an opening statement (no more than 10 minutes);
• The University presents its documents and evidence to support the charges. The faculty member and his/her legal counsel have the right to question all witnesses. The Hearing Committee may ask questions of the witness after the party has completed their questions;
• The faculty member and his/her legal counsel shall present their statement and documents/testimony to refute the charges. The University shall have the right to question the faculty member. The Hearing Committee may ask questions of the witness after the party has completed their questions;
• The University and then the faculty member may call additional witnesses as previously approved by the Hearing Officer. A witness list may be submitted by both the University and the Faculty member no later than five (5) days before the hearing to the Board Secretary. The witness list must identify what each witness will testify to and how the testimony is relevant to responding to the charges. Character witnesses are not permissible. The Board does not have the ability to compel testimony; thus the faculty member is responsible to supply her witnesses. If seeking a member of upper administration, the University will make the witness available. Repetitive or irrelevant testimony can be excluded by the hearing officer. Witnesses must have firsthand knowledge of the facts related to the charges;
• Any final questions from the parties and further questions from the Board;
• All questions by members of the Hearing Committee shall be asked through the Hearing Officer in order for a determination to be made regarding relevancy, redundancy,

etc. Committee members will not question witnesses or parties directly. Questions of each party's witnesses must be asked through the Hearing Officer so the Hearing Officer may make a determination as to relevance, redundancy, etc., prior to the witness answering the question.

11. Final statement by faculty member, which may be read by the attorney, limited to 10 minutes, if any;
12. Final statement by the University representative, which may be read by the attorney, limited to 10 minutes, if any;
13. At the discretion of the Hearing Officer, after the faculty member's witnesses have completed their testimony, including any questioning, the University may present rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal evidence shall be limited to new matters introduced in the faculty member's case. Surrebuttal evidence (limited to evidence rebutting the charging party's rebuttal evidence) shall also be allowed;
14. Dismissal of the University representative, faculty member, and attorneys;
15. Deliberation by the Board in executive session;
16. Legal counsel for the Board may be present at all hearings and deliberations;
17. The hearing shall be conducted in an informal manner to the greatest extent possible. Formal rules of evidence do not apply;
18. The Hearing Officer may, in their discretion, exclude evidence, including witness testimony, if the Hearing Officer determines that such evidence is not relevant to the charges at issue;
19. The Hearing Committee shall deliberate to prepare its repolt and recommendations, which shall be issued in writing within two (2) weeks from the hearing date.