The various types of leaves are defined in the Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.2.7, as well as in the Board of Regents’ Academic and Student Affairs Handbook, Section 4.9. The following section discusses leave policies that are unique to the Georgia Institute of Technology. However, none of these policies supersede the policies and procedures stated in the Board of Regents Policy Manual and Academic and Student Affairs Handbook.

Absences from Campus for Professional Activities
Occasional absences from campus are necessitated by the professional activities of most Faculty.  At the same time it is essential that supervisors be cognizant of absences of Faculty from campus and the reason for those absences, and that there be a clear prior approval and administrative oversight process that ensures that Board of Regents and Institute policies are followed.

Procedures

Absences from campus of more than one (1) business day for professional activities, including consulting, should be documented in advance by filing an online Travel Authorization request, or other acceptable document. The purpose of the absence and an itinerary should be provided. Any deviations from the original itinerary must be clearly indicated and explained when requests for reimbursement from Georgia Tech are submitted.

For absences from campus for professional activities of one (1) business day or less, the Faculty member should notify his/her supervisor or designated representative as to his/her location. A Travel Authorization request is not required unless reimbursement for expenses is expected.

It is the Faculty member’s responsibility to arrange for his/her duties to be performed during absences from campus. Cancellation of undergraduate classes due to absences from campus is strongly discouraged.
 

Approvals

Absences of more than one (1) business day must be approved by the School Chair or his/her designated representative or by the appropriate administrative officer in non-instructional divisions.

Absences of more than ten (10) consecutive business days must be approved by both the School Chair and the Dean of the College, who will notify the Provost, or by the appropriate and similar levels of administrative officers in non-instructional divisions. A proposed absence of greater than half a term in duration must be forwarded to the President by the Dean of the College or by the appropriate administrative officer in non-instructional divisions for consideration for a Leave of Absence as defined by the Board of Regents.

An administrator may be awarded academic rank (tenure or non-tenure track) upon review of his/her credentials and recommendation of academic rank, in accordance with the established statutory procedures required for academic appointment.

Administrators who normally may receive consideration for academic rank, either tenure or non-tenure track, are: President, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Executive Vice-President for Research, Vice Provost; Associate or Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Research; Associate or Assistant Vice-President for Research, Dean, Associate or Assistant Dean, Chair, Director or Department Head of an instructional unit, and Associate or Assistant Chair or Director of an instructional unit.

The academic and scholastic credentials of the Administrator or Administrator candidate shall be prepared in the same form required of all Academic Faculty being considered for an academic appointment.  At the time the Administrator or the Administrator candidate is being considered for academic rank, his/her academic and scholastic credentials shall be submitted to the School or department of association. The credentials shall be reviewed first by the established promotion and tenure peer review committee.  The currently required procedures for review of Academic Faculty being considered for an academic appointment shall be followed at all levels of review.

When an Administrator who currently holds academic rank is to be considered for promotion to a higher academic rank, his/her academic and scholastic credentials shall be prepared in the same form required of all Academic Faculty.  These credentials shall be submitted to the established school or department promotion and tenure peer review faculty committee. The currently required procedures for review of Academic Faculty being considered for academic promotion shall be followed at all levels of review.

When an Administrator who currently holds academic rank, non-tenure track, leaves his/her administrative position and requests a tenure track appointment in an instructional unit, his/her academic and scholastic credentials shall be submitted to the School or department, which shall follow the currently required procedures for tenure track appointment.

The Emeritus/Emerita/Emeritum title is an honorific signifying distinguished service to Georgia Tech. Consistent with Board of Regents’ policy, the President may confer emeritus status upon an employee who has retired with ten (10) or more years of honorable and distinguished service to the University System. The President's decision will be based, in part, upon the recommendation of the unit in which the employee has served. (Board of Regents’ Policy Manual, Section 2.11)

The following procedure shall be used to develop recommendations:

• The employee seeking the emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit title shall submit a written request to the Unit Head prior to the planned retirement date. An employee may also be nominated for emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit status by a colleague within the same unit, with the consent of the nominated employee. A request for emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit title will only be entertained after the candidate has initiated the off-boarding and retirement process.
• If the Unit has a designated Faculty Advisory Committee, the Unit Head shall forward the request, along with a detailed curriculum vitae of the employee, to that committee. The Unit's Faculty Advisory Committee shall submit a written recommendation (either positive or negative) to the Unit Head.
• The Unit Head shall prepare a written recommendation (either positive or negative) and shall forward such recommendation, along with the unit's Faculty Advisory Committee's recommendation (if applicable) and the employee's curriculum vitae, to the President for final action.
• The Unit recommendation shall be conveyed to the President and to the candidate within two (2) months after the request date for emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit title. The President will inform the candidate of their decision within one (1) month after receiving the Unit’s recommendation.

It is the policy of the Georgia Institute of Technology to consider the request from retired faculty to be provided office space.  After office space for regular faculty is provided, space, if available, may be provided to retired individuals who perform a service to the institution. Special approval is required from the department chair, academic dean, and the Provost.  Each case will be reviewed annually prior to the beginning of the academic year.

Concerns and complaints should normally be addressed first to the appropriate administrator and wherever possible resolved within the administrative process.

In situations where a faculty member desires confidential advice on the handling of a complaint, seeks advice on procedures and policies, or feels uncomfortable in bringing a concern directly to an administrator, then they are encouraged to discuss the situation with the Faculty Ombuds.

The Ombuds Office is a confidential resource for all faculty members on the campus. Its role is that of a neutral that advocates not for a specific individual, but for equity, fair process, and compliance with institutional policy and procedure. It acts as a complaint receiver for persons who believe they have been treated unfairly, coaches to help persons independently resolve difficult situations and as facilitators or mediators in an effort to assist persons in conflict to reach fair resolutions. The Ombuds Office is a confidential, informal, impartial, neutral and non adversarial alternative for the resolution of work-related problems and concerns. A request for assistance from the Ombuds Office does not preclude the faculty member from subsequently utilizing the Georgia Tech grievance process. The Ombuds Office is not an office of notice to the University. The Faculty Ombuds Office strives to follow the standards of the University and College Ombuds Association. The Faculty who staff this Office report to the President.

The Faculty Status and Grievance Committee receives from any Faculty member information, suggestions, grievance, or criticisms concerning any aspect of the Institute. It evaluates these and transmits constructive criticism and recommendations to appropriate individuals or committees or directly to the Faculty. The procedures of this committee are governed by Sections 2.6.3 and 3.1.9 of this Handbook.

On occasion an administrator or faculty member may feel the need for a witness to be present for the discussion of a sensitive matter. These occasions should be very rare, because the presence of witnesses may heighten tension and may indicate a lack of faith in a colleague. However, in those rare cases in which a witness is deemed necessary, there should be prior notification so the other person may also bring a witness, if he or she chooses. Alternatively, the meeting may be taped, with advance knowledge of the other party.

Process

A Faculty member may request, orally or in writing, the informal assistance of the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee (FSGC) in the resolution of grievances. The Chairperson of the FSGC may receive written grievances and/or requests for investigation. Such a request is not a prerequisite to the use of the grievance procedure set forth below, and the Faculty member may choose to file a formal complaint prior to the completion of the informal process. The FSGC, through its Chair or another designated member of the FSGC, may conduct negotiations between the grievant and other relevant persons.

A recommended course of action will include:

• Discussion with Administrator
  Before filing a grievance with the FSGC, a Faculty member shall first review the complaint with the administrator one level above the level of the dispute in an effort to reach a resolution.
• Initiation and Processing of Complaints
  If a resolution is not reached, the Faculty member grievant may inquire with the chair of the FSGC about the concern, or choose to file a grievance with the FSGC. Each grievant should file written notice of the grievance which should be submitted to the FSGC through its chair within a reasonable time frame after the events or actions of concern. Grievances based entirely on events or actions that occurred more than one year before the filing date will not be considered.
• Decision by FSGC on Proceeding
  Within approximately six (6) weeks of receipt of the complaint, the FSGC will inform the grievant, in writing, whether it will proceed with the review, and if so, whether the FSGC will pursue informal means of resolving the grievance, undertake an investigation, or schedule a hearing. If the FSGC decides not to review the complaint, it shall give reasons. If it decides to proceed, it shall specify in writing where and when an investigation will proceed or when and where a meeting or hearing will be held. The Chair shall send a copy of this initial response to both the grievant and the respondent. The Chair shall ensure that the person(s) against whom the grievance is filed is (are) properly identified, that specific charges are included, and that the form of requested redress is included. The Chair shall inform the grievant that this written request, together with any supporting documentation, will be given to the person(s) grieved against in an attempt to support the clarification and resolution of the case. In like fashion, any documentation made available to the FSGC by the person(s) grieved against will be given to the grievant.
• Informal Resolution
  If the FSGC pursues informal resolution, the Chair of the FSGC and/or designated member/s of the FSGC shall pursue negotiation, mediation, or other informal means. If the Chair or other FSGC members are unable to begin doing so within forty-five (45) working days after receipt of the grievance, the FSGC shall so notify the grievant in writing. If the FSGC determines that informal resolution is not likely to achieve resolution of a grievance, and the grievant so desires, the Committee will proceed to the investigation phase explained in the following section.

Procedures for the Conduct of an Investigation
The Chair shall inform each party of the names of the other parties and the nature of the complaint, if this was not already done at an earlier stage. The Chair will also advise the grievant and the respondent of the procedures in the grievance process.

The Chair will select three (3) members of an investigation subcommittee, consisting of members of the FSGC and/or individual Faculty appointed to serve as FSGC investigators by the Faculty Executive Board. The FSGC chair may serve as a member of the subcommittee. These three individuals will serve as a subcommittee for the purposes of investigating the complaint.

In the course of its investigation, the subcommittee shall interview the grievant, the respondent, and any other persons who, in the view of the subcommittee, may have relevant information. At the conclusion of the investigation, the subcommittee shall submit a written report to the FSGC. The FSGC may amend the report or accept it. The preliminary report will then be sent to both the grievant and the respondent.

The parties shall have ten (10) business days after receipt of the preliminary report to address the findings of the report. This may be in the form of a written response by either party or a request for a formal hearing by the grievant.

• A written response should state any disagreement with the committee’s findings and should not be longer than two (2) pages. The Chair shall arrange an exchange of responses between the grievant and respondent for informational purposes only. The lack of a response by a party shall be interpreted as acceptance by that party of the factual and interpretive information contained in the FSGC’s preliminary report.
• If the grievant wishes to pursue a formal hearing, a written request for a hearing must be submitted as part of the response to the FSGC’s preliminary report.
• If no request for a hearing is made at that time, the grievant has waived the right to a formal hearing, and the FSGC’s final report, together with any responses to it, shall be submitted to the President.
• The FSGC will make a report to the President within approximately ninety (90) days from the time a grievance is received.
• The President shall make a decision on the case and convey that decision in writing to the parties and to the Chair of the FSGC within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the FSGC’s recommendations.
• If a party requests a formal hearing, the FSGC shall follow the procedures below, and no report shall be made to the President until that process is concluded.

Once considered by the FSGC, a grievance may not be reopened unless, in the judgment of the Chair, there is significant new evidence that was not available at the time of the FSGC’s decision. Future grievances will be reviewed without prejudice.

Procedures for Parties Presenting Cases before a Formal Hearing Committee

Authorization
A formal hearing shall be authorized by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee under the following circumstances:

• A grievant makes a written request for a formal hearing within ten (10) working days after receipt of the report of the FSGC concerning an investigation; or
• This Handbook or other Institute policies require a formal hearing by the FSGC. 

      Notification
A copy of the charges made by the grievant(s) will be provided to the respondent(s).

Formulation of a Formal Hearing Committee
A formal hearing is conducted by a committee consisting of four faculty members chosen from the Faculty and a Chair who is a member of the FSGC.

The Office of Human Resources of Georgia Institute of Technology will generate a list of twenty-four (24) potential members of the Formal Hearing Committee by a random selection from the membership of the Faculty. If the grievance pertains to redress of decisions related to Academic Faculty status such as rank or tenure, then the generated list shall consist of only Academic Faculty of appropriate rank and tenure status. The FSGC shall remove from the list of twenty-four (24) any persons who are: members of the FSGC, Executive Committee Liaison to the FSGC, parties to the grievance, or witnesses. The number shall then be restored to twenty-four (24) by random selection. This process shall be continued until a qualified list is selected. Prior to the formal hearing, the grievant and the respondent will meet with the Chair of the FSGC for the purpose of striking names alternately until four (4) members of the Formal Hearing Committee have been selected. The last two (2) names struck will become alternates. Members of the Formal Hearing Committee must have approval of the Chair of the FSGC to be excused from the assignment. An excused person will be replaced by an alternate. The Formal Hearing Committee shall be chaired by a member of the FSGC.

The FSGC shall not be responsible for dismissal hearings for tenured faculty members, or non-tenured faculty members before the end of their contract term, if any. A separate process, consistent with the Bylaws of the Board of Regents, is set out for such hearings in Section 3.1.10 under Provision for Dismissal Hearing Committee.

Presentation of Cases
The grievant(s) and the respondent(s) are normally expected to present their own cases. However, all parties may have an advisor present at the hearing, and, when justice requires, the Chair of the FSGC or the Chair of the Formal Hearing Committee shall authorize an advisor to present a case. On request, the Chair of the FSGC may appoint an advisor to assist a party or to present the case of a party. Attorneys may be advisors but may not present cases.

Time
The Chair will establish a time limit for the entire proceedings as well as for its parts. Thus, the grievant(s) and the respondent(s) will be given a specified time for their brief opening statements, for presenting their cases, for cross-examination, for redirect examination, for rebuttal (by the grievant), and for closing statements. The agenda, with time limits, will be distributed by the Chair eight working days before the hearing.

The Chair will exercise authority to cut off "filibustering" or obvious repetition, and to enforce time limits.

Who May be Present for Formal Hearings of the FSGC
The hearing may be closed except to the members of the Formal Hearing Committee, the parties, and members of the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee. Advisors to parties, as heretofore described, may be present.

Order of Presentation

1.  The grievant(s) and respondent(s) will make brief opening statements. Each statement shall lay out the general nature of the case, without presenting evidence.
2.  Following the opening statements, the parties will present their cases with the grievant(s) making the first presentation(s). At this time any documents or testimony relevant to the case may be presented.
3.  Each party will have the right of cross-examination directly after the presentation of evidence by each witness. Redirect examination will be permitted. No new evidence may be introduced during the cross- or redirect examination.
4.  An opportunity for rebuttal will be provided to the grievant.
5.  Each party may make a closing statement. This is an opportunity for summary and argument and not for the presentation of new evidence.

Evidence
In general, any item may be presented as evidence so long as it is relevant and material. Each party shall prepare at least seven (7) copies of all material intended for use in the presentation: one (1) copy for each side and five (5) copies for the Formal Hearing Committee. The copies shall be provided with covers, in either notebooks or clasped folders. Lengthy materials, such as papers and publications, should be summarized or referenced if their contents are not specifically germane to the hearing. Material not included in the copies will not be admitted at the hearing.

The copy for the other party must be delivered to the Hearing Chair ten (10) working days before the hearing. The designated recipients of these copies should arrange to obtain them from the Hearing Chair no sooner than nine (9) working days before the hearing. Material which is not available at the time that the seven copies are delivered to the Hearing Chair may still be admissible as evidence, at the discretion of the Chair. In such a case, this new material will be distributed to all parties by the Chair prior to the hearing.

Rebuttal material and background documents need not be included in the distribution copies, but must be available for examination by the other side and the Hearing Committee during the hearing. Such items will be labeled as exhibits and will become part of the record.

Witnesses
Each party may call witnesses. Witnesses will be sequestered upon request of a party or by direction of the Chair. At least ten (10) working days before the scheduled hearing, each party shall provide the Hearing Committee Chair a list of witnesses who will be called and a list of witnesses who may be called. The other party should arrange to obtain these lists from the Hearing Chair no sooner than nine (9) working days before the hearing. The responsibility for notifying each witness resides with the party who has designated that witness.

Tape Recording
The proceedings will be tape recorded or taken down by a court reporter. The tapes or the transcript will be the official record of the proceeding and will be preserved by the Secretary of the FSGC.

Recommendations to the FSGC

The Chair and the other four (4) members of the Formal Hearing Committee will prepare written findings and recommendations to be given to the full FSGC. The Chair of the FSGC shall submit the Formal Hearing Committee's report, together with any recommendations of the FSGC, to the parties, to the President, and to other administrators, as appropriate, normally within thirty (30) days of the hearing. In the transmittal letter, it should be stated that the recommendations are intended to aid the resolution of the case. The President shall make a final decision on the case and convey that decision in writing to the parties and to the Chair of the FSGC, normally within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the FSGC recommendations

Faculty Conduct

As mentors, educators, colleagues, and supervisors, members of the Faculty understand that their actions impact others in the Georgia Tech community.  To foster a campus climate that is positive, inclusive, productive, and ethical, the Faculty endorse the Institute's core values and the need to maintain high standards of professional conduct. 

All Georgia Tech personnel are expected to act professionally, ethically, and responsibly and to abide by the rules and policies of Georgia Tech and the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (BOR).  The BOR Policy Manual Section 8.2 General Policies for all Personnel includes Section 8.2.18 Personnel Conduct, which discusses the Ethics Policy, the Code of Conduct, Conflicts of Interest, and other topics. 

Concerns regarding a failure by Faculty to abide by these standards governing faculty conduct (including violations of USG or Institute policies) will be addressed with the measures presented in this section. 

Faculty Discipline and Dismissal of Faculty Members 
Policy Manual of the Board of Regents, Section 8.3.9. 

The President may at any time remove any faculty member or other employee of Georgia Tech for cause. Causes or grounds for dismissal are set forth below. 

A tenured faculty member or a non-tenured faculty member, before the end of his/her contract term, may be dismissed for any of the following reasons provided that the Institution has complied with procedural due process requirements: 

• Conviction or admission of guilt of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude during the period of employment or prior thereto if the conviction or admission of guilt was willfully concealed; 
• Professional incompetency and neglect of duty that are not identified as part of the post-tenure review process, or default of academic integrity in teaching, research, or scholarship; 
• Unlawful manufacture, distribution, sale, use or possession of marijuana, a controlled substance, or other illegal or dangerous drugs as defined by Georgia laws; teaching or working under the influence of alcohol which interferes with the faculty member's performance of duty or his/her responsibilities to the Institute or to his/her profession; 
• Conviction or admission of guilt in a court proceeding of any criminal drug offense; 
• Physical or mental incompetency as determined by law or by a medical board of three or more licensed physicians and reviewed by a committee of the faculty; 
• False swearing with respect to official documents filed with the Institute; 
• Disruption of any teaching, research, administrative, disciplinary, public service or other authorized activity; 
• Willful or intentional violation of the policies of the Board of Regents or the Statutes of Georgia Tech; and  
• Such other grounds for dismissal as may be specified in this Handbook of the Institute. 

Sanctions short of dismissal may be considered for the causes listed above.   

Furthermore, faculty members who do not abide by the standards governing faculty conduct may face corrective actions and sanctions short of dismissal.  The purpose of such corrective actions and sanctions short of dismissal is to provide Faculty members with opportunities to address concerns and improve performance.  Continued issues should be addressed through escalating corrective actions and sanctions, including dismissal or tenure revocation.   

Corrective actions include coaching, counseling, and training.  Sanctions short of dismissal include the following progressive actions: verbal warning; written warning; modification of duties with no change in pay; reduction in duties with corresponding reduction in pay; suspension.   

In imposing sanctions, the burden of proof lies with the Institute. 

Procedures Preliminary to Dismissal 
The dismissal of tenured Faculty members or non-tenured Faculty members during their contract term should be preceded by: 

• Discussion between the Faculty member and appropriate Administrators looking toward a mutual settlement. 
• Informal inquiry by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee, which may, upon failing to effect an adjustment, advise the President whether dismissal proceedings should be undertaken; its advisory opinion shall not be binding upon the President. 
• A letter to the Faculty member forewarning that the member is about to be terminated for cause and informing the member that a statement of charges will be forwarded to the member upon request. The Faculty member may also request a formal hearing on the charges before a Faculty Hearing Committee. Failure to request charges or a hearing within a reasonable time shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing. 
• A statement of charges, if requested by the Faculty member, framed with reasonable particularity by the President or a designated representative.  Along with the charges, the faculty member shall be advised of the names of the witnesses to be used against him or her together with the nature of their expected testimony. 

Provision for Dismissal Hearing Committee 
A dismissal as defined above shall be preceded by a statement of charges or causes (grounds for dismissal) if so requested, including a statement that the Faculty member concerned shall have the right to be heard by a Faculty Hearing Committee. 

The Hearing Committee shall consist of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) impartial Faculty members appointed by the Faculty Executive Board, from among the members of the entire Faculty (as defined by policies of the Board of Regents) of the Institute. 

Members of the Hearing Committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the Faculty. The Hearing Committee will meet as a body when it is called into session by the Chair of the Faculty Executive Board either at the Chair’s discretion or upon request of the President or the Faculty member who is subject to dismissal. 

When the Hearing Committee is called into session, it shall elect a Chair from among its membership. Members should remove themselves from the case, either at the request of a party or on their own initiative, if they deem themselves disqualified for bias or interest. Each party shall have a maximum of two (2) challenges without stated cause; provided, however, that all challenges whether with or without cause shall be made in writing and filed with the Chair of the Hearing Committee at least five (5) days in advance of the date set for the hearing. The Chair shall have the authority to decide whether a member of the Committee is disqualified for cause. If the Chair determines that members are so disqualified or if members remove themselves from a case, the replacement shall be made in the same manner as the original Committee was selected. If the Chair is thus removed, the Committee shall elect a new Chair after the Committee replacements have been appointed. A minimum of three (3) members is required for any action to be taken. 

Hearing Procedures 

In all instances where a hearing is requested, the following hearing procedures shall apply: 

• Service of notice of the hearing with specific reasons or charges against the Faculty member together with the names of the members of the Hearing Committee shall be made in writing at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing. The Faculty member may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at least five (5) days in advance of the date set for the hearing. If a Faculty member waives a hearing, but denies the charges or asserts that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the Hearing Committee shall evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record. 
• The Hearing Committee, in consultation with the President and the Faculty member, may exercise its judgment as to whether the hearing should be public or private. 
• During the proceedings, the Faculty member and the Administration shall each be permitted to have an academic advisor and/or counsel of their choice. The Hearing Committee shall be permitted to have advisory counsel. 
• At the request of either party or the Chair of the Hearing Committee, a representative of a responsible educational association shall be permitted to attend as an observer. 
• A tape recording or transcript of the proceeding shall be kept and made available to the Faculty member and the Administration in the event an appeal is filed. 
• An oath or affirmation shall be administered to all witnesses by any person authorized by law to administer oaths in the State of Georgia. 
• The Hearing Committee may grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made. The Faculty member and the administration shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. 
• The Faculty member and the Administration will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where the witness cannot or will not appear but the Committee determines that the interests of justice require the admission of the witness statement, the Committee will identify the witness, disclose the statement, and, if possible, provide for interrogatory. 
• The Hearing Committee will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available. All questions relating to admissibility of evidence or other legal matters shall be decided by the Chair or presiding officer. 
• The findings of fact and the decision of the Hearing Committee will be based solely on the hearing record. 
• Except for such simple announcements as may be required covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the Faculty member or Administrators should be avoided until the proceedings have been completed, including consideration by the Board of Regents in the event an appeal is filed. The President and the Faculty member will be notified in writing of the decision and recommendation, if any, of the Hearing Committee. 

Conclusions

• If the Hearing Committee concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has not been established by the evidence in the record, it will so report to the President. If the President does not approve the report, the President should state the reasons in writing to the Committee for response before rendering a final decision. If the Committee concludes that an academic penalty less than dismissal would be more appropriate than dismissal, it may so recommend with supporting reasons. The President may or may not follow the recommendations of the Committee. 
• After complying with the foregoing procedures, the President shall send an official letter to the Faculty member notifying the member of either retention or removal for cause. Such letter shall be delivered to addressee only, with receipt to show to whom and when delivered and address where delivered. The letter shall clearly state any charges which the President has found sustained and shall notify the Faculty member that an appeal may be made to the Board of Regents for review. The appeal shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Secretary of the Board of Regents within twenty (20) days following the decision of the President. It shall state the decision complained of and the redress desired. The Board of Regents or a committee of the Board shall investigate the matter thoroughly and render its decision thereon within sixty (60) days from the date of the receipt of the appeal or from the date of any hearing which may be held thereon.
• Upon dismissal by the President, the Faculty member shall be suspended from employment without pay from the date of the final decision of the President. Should the Faculty member be reinstated by action of the Board of Regents, compensation shall be made from the date of suspension. 

Temporary or Part-Time Personnel 

Temporary or part-time personnel serving without a written contract hold their employment at the pleasure of the President, chief academic officer, or their immediate supervisor, any of whom may discontinue the employment of such employees without cause or advance notice. (Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.9.3.) 

(Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.9.4)

When a Faculty member is charged with the violation of a state or federal law, or is indicted for any such offense, a thorough review of the circumstances shall be carried out by the President.

In the event a Faculty member is temporarily suspended, the Faculty member has the right to make a written request for an appeal of the suspension.  In that event, the Administration shall immediately convene an ad hoc Faculty committee or utilize the services of an appropriate existing Faculty committee for the purpose of hearing the appeal by the Faculty member.  Information supporting the appeal shall be submitted in writing in accordance with procedures to be established by the hearing committee, which shall render its decision within ten (10) days from the conclusion of the hearing.  Thereafter, any further appeal by the Faculty member shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article VIII of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents.

Research Faculty members are not eligible for tenure. While they are subject to many of the general hiring and promotion criteria for tenure-track Faculty, there are significant differences. The following sections detail established positions in the Research Faculty and their promotion criteria. 

Titles 

Research Faculty titles include: 

• Research Scientist 

• Research Engineer 

• Research Technologist 

• Research Associate 

• Extension Professional 

A person is normally hired into a Scientist, Engineer, Technologist, Associate, or Extension Professional position, where appropriate, on the basis of the field of their most recent educational degree or their experience. Standards of evaluation will generally be based on the standards of that field. There are levels of I, II, Senior, and Principal for each of these titles. 

Research Associate Titles 

The title of Research Associate is held by research personnel who meet all normal requirements, but for whom the title of Engineer, Scientist, or Technologist is not appropriate. The title is intended for professionals for whom a specific need exists, but because of the different nature of their education or experience, should not be classified (at least initially) in the Research Engineer/Scientist/Technologist structures. In determining when it will be suitable to use the Research Associate title structure, reliance will be placed on comparison with the established criteria for Research Engineer/Scientist/Technologist. That is, the qualifications for Research Associate should have an equivalency to Research Engineer/Scientist/Technologist but will differ in some particular aspect. In general, it will offer more flexibility in considering the candidate's total qualifications and suitability for employment at Georgia Tech. The title is intended to be broad enough in scope to include any professional categories appropriate to the Institute's needs. Examples include medical doctors, health and safety professionals, social scientists, architects, and management experts. 

Extension Professional Titles 

The title of Extension Professional is held by research personnel that fulfill the extension and service mission of Georgia Tech to the State of Georgia and beyond. This mission includes, but is not limited to, technology-based economic development, technology commercialization and deployment, entrepreneurship, start-up company incubation, and business and industry outreach. Extension Professionals also provide educational programs for business and industry in support of these missions and facilitate and foster increased industrial engagement and sponsorship of applied research activities with Georgia Tech. 

Extension Professional appointments are made on the basis of merit and the special qualifications of the individual and follow the same general ranking, hiring, and promotion principles as the other professional research faculty ranks. Extension Professional ranks include the same levels as for the other titles above. Promotion criteria, including education and time in rank, shall follow the research titles as outlined in the following section; however, equivalent extension impacts and accomplishments versus research accomplishments will be considered by the promotion review boards. 

Promotion to a Higher Rank 

Following are normal requirements for consideration for promotion to a higher rank. These experience and performance criteria may also be used for determining the initial rank when hiring professional research personnel. Credit for previous academic or research professional experience should be explicitly stated in writing at the time of employment. In addition to these criteria, to be considered for promotion will normally require a number of years in rank, as follows: 

• Research Scientist II – Three (3) years as Research Scientist I 

• Senior Research Scientist – Four (4) years as Research Scientist II 

• For candidates holding the Doctoral degree, employment prior to employment at Georgia Tech will be considered if adequately documented, and the four-year time in rank requirement reduced to two (2) years for candidates so qualified. Employment prior to Georgia Tech plus employment at Georgia Tech must be four years or more with a minimum of two (2) years in rank at Georgia Tech. 

• Principal Research Scientist - Five (5) years as Senior Research Scientist 

As used in this Handbook, "years of experience," "years in rank," and "years at Georgia Tech" are to be calculated as of July 1st of the year in which the promotion would take effect. Note: In the above and following sections, the term "Research Scientist" is used to indicate any one of the following: Research Scientist, Research Engineer, Research Technologist, Research Associate, or Extension Professional.  

The following sections describe the credentials, competency, and performance expected of the identified ranks. Requirements for professional registration and other legal or professional certification are not identified in these guidelines as prerequisites for promotion. Instead, this formal evidence of competency is expected to be provided by persons assigned to duties that require them. 

Research Scientist I 

This is the initial rank held by research personnel who have at least a bachelor's degree and who will be performing on a professional level. 

Research Scientist II 

In addition to the years-in-rank requirement, this rank requires one (1) of the following: 

• A Master’s degree and three (3) years of relevant full-time experience after completion of that degree, 

• A Master’s degree and five (5) years of relevant full-time experience after completion of a Bachelor’s degree, or 

• A Doctoral degree. 

Qualified candidates who are recommended by the normal administrative process will not be reviewed by a Presidential committee. Professional recognition in one's research field will be expected. 

In addition to the candidate’s education and experience, the promotion recommendation shall include substantive evidence of the candidate's progress toward developing the capabilities for performing at the level expected of research professionals in the same field holding senior Research Faculty ranks at Georgia Tech. Such evidence might consist of papers published or contributed to, significant managerial efforts on sponsored projects, products developed and delivered to the sponsor community such as software or hardware and documented impacts of these products, or equivalent teaching responsibilities performed in an instructional unit. 

Senior Research Scientist 

In addition to the years-in-rank requirement, this rank requires one (1) of the following: 

• A Master’s degree and seven (7) years of relevant full-time experience after completion of that degree, 

• A Master’s degree and nine (9) years of relevant full-time experience after completion of a Bachelor’s degree, or 

• A Doctoral degree and four (4) years of relevant full-time experience after completion of a Bachelor's degree. 

The rank of Senior Research Scientist is reserved for those professionals who have demonstrated a level of scholarly achievement and technical, managerial, and entrepreneurial productivity commensurate with the highest standards of Georgia Tech. Achievements should include recognized contributions to their specific technical disciplines; supervision of other research professionals through review and approval of proposals, technical reports and other communications; and representation of Georgia Tech to external organizations for the purpose of obtaining, managing, and performing high-quality sponsored research programs. Preference will be shown for qualified personnel holding a Doctoral degree in their specified discipline. 

In addition to the basic requirements, above, demonstrated superior performance of professional duties is required as follows: 

1. Peer recognition of mastery of a complex and difficult field of specialization as demonstrated through authorship of refereed papers and/or products developed and delivered to the sponsor community such as software or hardware, and documented impacts of these products. The latter may come in the form of sponsor satisfaction testimonials. While emphasis will be given to authorship of journal and symposium papers which have been refereed, recognition will also be given to contributions to other journals, organizational publications, widely distributed reports which effect an education and technology information transfer; and at least two (2) of the following B through E. 

2. Important technical contributions and innovation as documented in formal reports of several projects over a minimum time of four (4) years prior to recommendation for promotion. 

3. Supervision of others' work by virtue of being a program manager, project director/principal investigator, co-project director/principal investigator, or task leader on sponsored research of such magnitude as to require guidance and supervision of other professionals. 

4. Substantial documented contributions in sponsored program development. 

5. Superior ability in representing the School/Center/Laboratory/Georgia Tech in service to and dealings with outside organizations. 

Principal Research Scientist 

In addition to the years-in-rank requirement, this rank requires either: 

• A Master's degree and eleven (11) years' relevant full-time experience; or 

• A Doctoral degree and seven (7) years' relevant full-time experience. 

At least the most recent three (3) years of relevant experience shall have been at a responsible technical or managerial level. Preference will be shown for qualified personnel holding a Doctoral degree in their specific discipline. 

In addition to the basic requirements above, the candidate for the rank of Principal Research Scientist must be outstanding in item A below and have demonstrated outstanding capabilities in at least two (2) of the research or service activities B through D: 

1. Clear evidence of consistent performance in the making of original and innovative contributions that are nationally recognized for their excellence as documented by external peer review. At least three (3) letters of evaluation must be obtained by the Institute from highly qualified persons in the candidate's professional field who are not employed by the Institute. 

2. Leadership in developing and managing a technical thrust involving related projects. Special consideration will be given to programs involving a broad participation by research and instructional Faculty and Students. 

3. Substantial contributions to Georgia Tech by service to the Institute, the State, the Nation, or to the candidate's profession. 

4. Broad recognition of technical stature as evidenced by invited papers or seminars, session chairperson at national symposia, memberships on national committees, offices in professional societies, or other appropriate honors. 

Joint Appointments in Instructional Units 

Instances may arise where it is appropriate for a Research Faculty member not in an Instructional Unit to receive a joint appointment to such a Unit. See Section 3.3.1 concerning Joint Appointments. 

While persons holding the positions detailed under the following headings are members of the Academic Faculty, they are not eligible for tenure. While they are subject to many of the general hiring and promotion criteria for tenure-track Faculty, there are significant differences. The following sections identify non-tenure track positions in the Academic Faculty and their promotion criteria. 

Professor of the Practice 

The position of Professor of the Practice is for qualified academic, business, or government leaders. Due to the stature of individuals to be offered this position, the category will have only one rank: Professor of the Practice. 

The qualifications are: 

• Have substantial bases of experience, normally at least ten (10) to fifteen (15) years, and a national/international reputation for excellence. 

• Have rich and extensive backgrounds in fields and disciplines related to the school or college of appointment at the Institute. 

And expectations for this position are: 

• Will serve as liaisons between industry or government and the Institute in identifying teaching and research opportunities that support the public interest and societal needs. 

• May be expected (depending on circumstances of their appointment) to generate financial resources to support and enhance the Institute programs in which they work. 

The guidelines for implementation are: 

• General duties and responsibilities must be agreed upon in advance with each Professor of the Practice and their Chair, Dean or Unit Head, and be documented in their letter of appointment. 

• Appointments as Professor of the Practice may be full-time or part-time. Eligibility for fringe and retirement benefits will conform to Georgia Tech employment policies. 

• “Professor of the Practice” is a non-tenurable title which is consistent with Board of Regents provisions for “Non-Tenure Track Personnel.” This classification carries with it membership in the Academic Faculty of the Institute. 

• The position may be described as “Professor of the Practice of X,” where X is an academic discipline or specialty. For communications purposes, a Professor of the Practice may represent themself with a shorter title as “Professor of X.” 

• Professors of the Practice will be reappointed annually but with no limit as to the number of years that may be served. 

• Professors of the Practice will participate in an annual evaluation, as is regularly conducted for tenure track Faculty. Performance will be evaluated during this annual evaluation, with actions and recommendations made as appropriate. 

• During the term of their appointment, Professors of the Practice are subject to, and protected by, the same Institute policies concerning academic freedom as tenured and tenure track Faculty. 

• Funding sources for Professors of the Practice may include the Institute, College, School, or Center, or some combination of these, and the funds may consist in whole or in part of funds generated by the individual. 

• Schools, Colleges, and Units at the Institute have considerable latitude in developing complementary policies and procedures for Professors of the Practice as long as they are consistent with overall policies detailed in this Section. 

• The Institute and its Schools, Colleges and Units will adopt appointment and reappointment policies. At minimum, these policies will involve letters of recommendation concerning the individual being proposed for a position as Professor of the Practice, on-campus interviews of the candidate, input into the decision by a body of the faculty in the School or College or Unit, recommendation of the Chair and/or Dean or Unit Head, and approval by the Provost. Faculty involvement in the decision to hire should be identical to those procedures used for hiring tenured Professors. 

Academic Professionals 

Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.8.4. 

Academic Professional titles may be assigned to appropriate positions (as defined below). Persons in such positions may be involved in duties of a managerial, research, technical, special, career, public service, or instructional support nature. The ranks of the Academic Professional at Georgia Tech include Associate Academic Professional, Academic Professional, Senior Academic Professional, and Principal Academic Professional. 

The following stipulations apply to all Academic Professional positions: 

• The position requires an appropriate terminal degree, or in rare and extraordinary circumstances, qualification on the basis of demonstrably successful related experience, which exception is expressly approved by the President; 

• The Academic Professional designation may not be assigned to a position where the teaching and research responsibilities total 50% or more of the total assignment; and 

• The position is not a tenure-track position, and the holder of the position is not eligible for consideration for the award of tenure, or for probationary credit toward tenure. 

The designation Academic Professional would apply to a variety of academic assignments that call for academic background similar to that of a Faculty member with professorial rank, but which are distinctly different from professorial positions. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• instructional laboratory management, 

• academic program management, 

• program development and coordination, 

• program evaluation and assessment, 

• operating instructional technology support programs, 

• responsibility for general academic advising, 

• providing services or co-curricular educational opportunities for students, 

• professional student counseling center responsibilities, 

• providing specialized skill acquisition training as support for academic programs, 

• course, laboratory, and curriculum development, and 

• course delivery. 

Academic Professionals at any rank will be evaluated annually. 

Reappointment of Academic Professionals is made annually. Notice of non-reappointment must be made in a timely manner consistent with Board of Regents policy, using the three-, six-, and nine-month notification schedule depending upon length of service in the position, as outlined in the Notice subsection of Section 3.3.3. 

Criteria or guidelines for reappointment in Academic Professional ranks generally follow those established for Instructional Units as set out in Section 3.3.3. Additional criteria may be established by the President in consultation with the Faculty Executive Board and shall be published and distributed to the Faculty. 

Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion 

• Associate Academic Professional. This is the entry-level rank and normally requires completion of the terminal degree. In exceptional cases, this rank may be used for individuals completing a terminal degree and for a period of two (2) years. If the degree is not conferred, another position appointment is required. 

• Academic Professional. This rank requires a terminal degree. It also requires significant related experience or promotion from the rank of Associate Academic Professional. Ordinarily at least three (3) years as an Associate Academic Professional is required before promotion to the rank of Academic Professional. The quality of performance and potential for development must be recognized by peers. Credit for previous academic or professional experience should be explicitly stated at the time of employment. 

• Senior Academic Professional. This rank requires a terminal degree. It also requires evidence of superior performance in the chosen field, recognition by peers (whether national, regional, or local), and successful and measurable related experience. Promotion to Senior Academic Professional from the rank of Academic Professional requires at least five (5) years at that level. Credit for previous academic or professional experience should be explicitly stated at the time of employment. 

• Principal Academic Professional. This rank requires a terminal degree. It also requires evidence of superior performance in the chosen field, recognition by peers (whether national, regional, or local), and successful and measurable related experience, including but not limited to supervision of others’ work, significant responsibility, and authority within program area, and demonstrated impact. Promotion to Principal Academic Professional from the rank of Senior Academic Professional requires at least six (6) years at that level. Credit for previous academic or professional experience should be explicitly stated at the time of employment. 

Academic Professional ranks constitute a career ladder, and minimum times in rank are generally required for consideration for promotion. However, promotion is not routine: each rank has its own performance criteria. Thus, successful performance at one rank in and of itself does not necessarily imply having met the criteria for the next rank simply with the passage of time. 

Minimum expectations for promotion in all Academic Professional ranks should be based on the five (5) criteria listed below. The candidate must demonstrate noteworthy achievement in number one (effective administration) and two of the others. 

1. effectively carrying out assigned administrative duties within the unit; 

2. superior teaching and/or educational impact, if applicable; 

3. outstanding service to the Institute, and/or community; 

4. outstanding research, scholarship, creative activity, or academic achievement, as defined by role;  

5. noteworthy achievement in student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, research, scholarship, creative activity, or academic achievement, and service; and 

6. professional growth and development. 

Each Unit is expected to establish clear guidelines and examples based on these promotion criteria and the mission of that Unit. These guidelines should be easily accessible to all faculty. 

As part of the promotion process, the supervisor should submit a written recommendation setting forth the reasons and justification, based on the above criteria, for promotion. The Academic Professional’s length of service with the Institute shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the individual should be promoted. 

Promotion to the rank of Academic Professional or above additionally requires the earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience. Neither the possession of a doctorate nor longevity of service is a guarantee per se of promotion. 

Any promotion denied for budgetary reasons alone shall be considered as deferred until sufficient funds become available. 

After initial appointment, each candidate for promotion will be judged primarily on the basis of the quality of performance of their assigned responsibilities consistent with the appropriate position description and on whether or not they meet the criteria for the rank.  The candidate will also be expected to have made significant progress in their own professional area. Documentation of this progress necessarily will be appropriate for the specific position and may include such items as professional recognition, awards, service in professional associations, creative activities, and service within the academic community and professional or disciplinary contributions. Section 3.3.7 of the Georgia Tech Faculty Handbook provides guidance related to the evaluation of faculty members as teachers and educators and the evaluation of the research and service contributions of faculty. This guidance may be used as a framework for promotion consideration; however, evaluators should keep in mind that teaching and research together should constitute less than 50% of any Academic Professional’s duties. 

Promotion Procedures 

Candidate’s Responsibility 

Preparation of the promotion dossier is the responsibility of the candidate in consultation with and support of their supervisor. The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for the evaluation letters. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete, and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, consideration of promotion may be delayed until the following year. 

The candidate should include at a minimum the following information: 

• A position description (provided in conjunction with the supervisor) if the promotion includes a change in professional responsibilities. 

• A self-statement by the candidate. 

• A curriculum vitae that summarizes biographical, personal, and professional data using the Institute standard format for academic professionals. 

• The candidate may also submit evidence of three (3) to five (5) examples of their relevant best work that represent their administrative and/or creative capabilities. These may include reports, published papers, books, software, patents, art productions, or other relevant examples that reflect their superior performance and will be recognized by their peers as such. 

• If the candidate has teaching responsibilities, the candidate should provide their own table of student evaluation scores from the Course Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). The table should be in the Institute standard format and include the scores from the question: “Is the instructor an effective teacher?” Other evidence of effective teaching may be provided with the guidance of the supervisor, including student success activities. 

• Names of Reviewers. The candidate should provide the names of at least three (3) people who are in a position to evaluate the dossier for promotion. 

• Signed Statement of Completeness and Waiver of Access forms provided by the Unit. 

External Peer Review 

Letters of evaluation. Depending upon the nature of the candidate’s responsibilities, these letters may be national, regional, or local. There should be at least three and need not be more than five, but each should be from an evaluator outside of the unit (i.e., outside of the college, vice provost, or vice president’s unit), address the substance of the candidate’s accomplishments and be solicited either by the supervisor or Unit head with an explanation of the criteria for evaluation, as appropriate. At least one (1) letter of evaluation should be from an individual external to the Institute for promotion to Academic Professional or Senior Academic Professional and at least two (2) should be external to Georgia Tech for promotion to Principal Academic Professional. 

The list of individuals from whom letters are to be obtained shall be developed jointly by the candidate for promotion and the supervisor. The final decision regarding who is selected to provide evaluations from the list shall rest with the supervisor. It is appropriate to use the same letters for two (2) consecutive years of the process. 

A candidate for promotion shall have the right to request that a particular individual not be contacted as an external reviewer. Such requests are typically honored. If the supervisor concludes that circumstances require use of that reviewer, the letter must be in addition to those normally required, identified as such, and filed separately from the other external letters. A justification for including the letter must be included in the package. 

External evaluations shall be solicited by the supervisor or Unit Head and supplied to the other levels of review on campus. These letters shall be solicited with the understanding that, insofar as possible, access to them will be limited to persons involved in the promotion decision. 

All candidates will be asked to sign a waiver indicating whether or not candidate “waives all rights to see the identity of the external letter writers and/or the content of their letters.” The waiver form with the candidate’s decision will be included in the package. 

Internal Review 

Based on the candidate’s dossier and the external letters, the supervisor will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Unit Head. This letter should provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and performance using the relevant criteria related to their position, a summary of the external letters, and a recommendation for or against promotion. If the promotion also includes a change in or additional professional responsibilities, the change should be described. This letter from the supervisor will be added to the candidate materials and external letters. 

The Unit Head will convene an elected Faculty committee which may include tenured faculty as well as academic professionals at or above the rank being considered (the members of the committee may be external to the home unit). Based on the results of an official vote, the committee will send its recommendation to the Unit head describing the rationale of the vote either for or against promotion. 

The Unit head will write a letter to the Provost summarizing the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case and whether they recommend promotion or not. In a case in which the supervisor is the Unit Head, for example when the candidate reports directly to the dean of a college, the Unit Head may provide the committee with written guidance that describes what the candidate has accomplished and what there is about the quality of the candidate’s work and expertise which warrants promotion at this time. If the promotion also includes a change in or additional professional responsibilities, the change should be described. The Unit Head will write their letter to the Provost following the recommendation by the committee. 

Institute Review 

The Unit Head forwards their letter with the completed package to the Provost through the Office of Faculty Affairs for final review. The final outcome of the decision is communicated in writing to the Dean of the College or appropriate Unit Head, who in turn communicates the decision to the faculty member at the end of the review process. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

After the final decision has been made and communicated in a letter from the President, it is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate place for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the supervisor. The supervisor shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by the committee and all other reviewers with the exception of the reviewers’ letters. At the end of the review process, the supervisor shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately. 

In cases of disapproval of promotion, a candidate shall be counseled concerning the reasons for a negative decision. 

The candidate may withdraw their promotion package at any time prior to submission of the package to the Office of the Provost. 

Lecturers 

Full-Time Lecturers 
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.8.1 and 8.3.8.2 

To carry out special instructional functions such as basic skills instruction, the Institute may appoint instructional staff members to the position of Lecturer. Lecturers at any rank are not eligible for the award of tenure. Reappointment of a lecturer who has completed six (6) consecutive years of service to the Institute will be permitted only if the lecturer has demonstrated exceptional teaching ability and extraordinary value to the Institute. The reappointment process must follow Institute procedures. Not more than twenty (20) percent of the Institute’s FTE corps of primarily undergraduate instruction may be Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Principal Lecturers. 

Senior and Principal Lecturers 
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.8.3 

The titles of Senior Lecturer and Principal Lecturer may be used at the discretion of the Institute. The Institute is discouraged from initial hiring at the Senior and Principal Lecturer levels. Both Senior and Principal Lecturers are expected to participate fully in the School/College and at a more robust level than Lecturers. Their participation may include new course development, service on internal/external committees, research and implementation regarding pedagogy, and/or leadership within the School/College. In addition to time in rank at the Senior Lecturer level, Principal Lecturers also are expected to show more leadership and educational impact than a Senior Lecturer and their participation may include cutting-edge pedagogical practices and/or leadership within the Institute. 

Lecturers who have served for a period of at least six (6) years at the Institute may be considered for promotion to Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturers who have served for a period of at least five (5) years in rank at the Institute may be considered for promotion to Principal Lecturer. Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Principal Lecturer requires approval by the President. 

Hiring and Reappointment 
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.4 

Full-time Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Principal Lecturers are appointed on a year-to-year basis and reappointment procedures are the same at all ranks. Since individuals in these positions serve in Instructional Units, procedures for consideration of reappointment are handled by those Units in the same manner as for other Reappointments, as set out in this Handbook, Section 3.3.3. Hiring of Lecturers at all ranks should include letters of recommendations, on-campus interviews, official transcripts, background checks, a job description specific to the appointment, other supporting documentation, request by the Chair and/or Dean, and approval by the Provost. 

Lecturers of all ranks who have served full-time for the entire previous academic year have the presumption of reappointment for the subsequent academic year unless notified in writing to the contrary as follows: 

• For Lecturers of all ranks with less than three (3) years of full-time service, the Institute shall provide non-reappointment notice as early as possible, but no specific notice is required. 

• For Lecturers of all ranks with three (3) or more years but less than six (6) years of full-time service, the Institute must provide non-reappointment notice at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first day of classes in the semester. 

• For Lecturers of all ranks with six (6) years or more of full-time service, the Institute must provide non-reappointment notice at least one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days prior to the first day of classes in the semester. 

Lecturers of all ranks with six (6) or more years of full-time service who have received timely notice of non-reappointment shall be entitled to a review of the decision in accordance with the procedures in this Handbook. For additional appeal procedures see Section VIII of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents. 

In no case will service as a Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, or Principal lecturer imply any claim upon tenure or reappointment under conditions other than those above. 

Guidelines for Promotion and Evaluation 

Lecturers are expected to focus on classroom instruction, but service activities can be part of their duties. The development of original course material and syllabi in line with the learning outcomes of the course(s) may also be part of their duties. Service may be included in the evaluation. Some examples of service may include participation on internal or related external committees, faculty advisor for student organizations, advisor for senior design projects, or other meaningful engagement with the campus community. 

Professional development may also be included in the evaluation. Examples of professional development are publication of papers or technical reports, attendance at field-related conferences, incorporation of recent research into courses, attendance at teaching workshop, or creative contributions. Any expectation of service or professional development activities should be outlined in the appointment letter. In rare cases, administrative duties may be assigned as a small percentage of the position responsibilities. However, classroom instruction should account for a majority of the workload for lecturers of all ranks. 

Lecturers must also be evaluated on their achievements in student success activities as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service. Faculty members are to be evaluated on their student success activities that are relevant to their job responsibilities and roles. Faculty members are afforded the discretion to determine the student success activities that they undertake; however, as required by the Board of Regents, faculty members must report their student success activities. 

Lecturers at any rank will be evaluated annually and should demonstrate excellence in teaching. Each unit is expected to establish a set of clearly defined criteria for promotion defined in accordance with the mission of that Unit. These criteria should be easily accessible to all faculty. 

Lecturers shall prepare a teaching portfolio which should include materials for the course(s) taught, self-evaluation, student evaluations, and other related information. 

The teaching portfolio will be reviewed as part of the evaluation processes by an elected Faculty committee constituted in each School and/or College. 

In addition to an annual evaluation, Lecturers in their third year will have a third-year review initiated by the Unit head and conducted by the School/College Committee. This review will also be used to determine progress toward promotion to Senior Lecturer. Promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer may be considered after six (6) years at the Institute. Promotion from Senior Lecturer to Principal Lecturer may be considered after five (5) years in rank as a Senior Lecturer. Time in service at any rank does not necessarily imply having met the criteria for the next rank simply with the passage of time. 

Formal evaluation for promotion should include the teaching portfolio, a current curriculum vitae including service and professional development activities, and a minimum of three (3) letters of evaluation external to the unit. At least one evaluation letter should be from an individual external to the Institute; for promotion to Principal Lecturer, at least two letters should be from individuals external to the Institute. 

Materials will be reviewed by an elected School/College committee. The School/College Committee will submit a letter of support for and the reason for the promotion as well as the official vote to the school chair or dean (depending on if the candidate is at the school or college level). The school chair or dean will write a letter to the Provost summarizing the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case and whether they recommend promotion or not. 

Promotion to Senior Lecturer or Principal Lecturer requires approval by the President. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

After the final decision has been made and communicated in a letter from the President, it is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate place for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the supervisor. The supervisor shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by the committee and all other reviewers (with the exception of the reviewers’ letters). At the end of the review process, the supervisor shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately. 

In cases of disapproval of promotion, a candidate shall be counseled concerning the reasons for a negative decision. 

The candidate may withdraw their promotion package at any time prior to submission of the package to the Office of the Provost. 

Instructors 

A person hired with the academic rank of Instructor is not eligible for tenure under Board of Regents policies.

Librarians and Archivists 

Georgia Tech Library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), a nonprofit organization of over 120 research libraries at comprehensive, research institutions in Canada and the US that share similar research missions, aspirations, and achievements. Georgia Tech Librarians and Archivists follow similar guidelines and practices as other ARL member libraries where librarians and archivists are non-tenured track faculty. 

The position of Librarian or Archivist is for qualified individuals within the Georgia Tech Library who provide complex information services to: 

(a) ensure students and faculty have necessary information resources; (b) teach students information and data literacy to ensure that they become proficient life-long learners; (c) support and facilitate faculty in their teaching and research endeavors. Librarians or Archivists may focus on one or more areas within the information lifecycle, which encompasses information creation, selection, acquisition, organization, retrieval, access, dissemination, discovery, evaluation, display, and preservation. For example, a cataloging librarian is involved primarily in information organization, access, and discovery. A digital scholarship librarian concentrates on information creation, organization, and dissemination. An instruction librarian’s job centers on information retrieval, dissemination, and evaluation; and an archivist focuses on information preservation and access. 

Career ladders are established for Librarians and Archivists, using the following titles: Librarian/Archivist I, Librarian/Archivist II, Librarian/Archivist III, and Librarian/Archivist IV. Eligibility for promotion consideration is based on (a) years of service as a Librarian/Archivist at the current rank; (b) years of professional experience as a Librarian/Archivist in general; and (c) a mandatory 3rd year review. Years of service is calculated based on the Georgia Tech fiscal year. A Librarian/Archivist’s first year of service at Georgia Tech starts on July 1 of the calendar year when the Librarian/Archivist is employed on or before October 15. Otherwise, a Librarian/Archivist’s first year of service at Georgia Tech starts on July 1 of the following calendar year. A Librarian/Archivist at any rank must submit their dossier for a mandatory 3rd year review at the beginning of their 3rd year of service at the Library.  

Librarians/Archivists are expected to, first and foremost, excel in their positions held at Georgia Tech. As a result, the vast majority of their time should be spent on carrying out assigned duties within the Library. The rest of a Librarian/Archivist’s time should be distributed equally to scholarship and service. Service typically include service to the Library, Institute, and the library profession which are beyond those mandated by the individual’s primary job responsibilities. Exceptions to this typical effort distribution should be documented in writing, acknowledged by the Librarian/Archivist, their supervisor, and the Dean of Libraries. The primary indicator of excellence is impact. As a librarian/archivist approaches higher ranks, demonstrated impact beyond the Institution is expected. 

Librarians/Archivists at any rank will be evaluated annually. 

Reappointment of Librarians and Archivists is made annually. Notification of non-reappointment must be made in a timely manner consistent with Board of Regents policy, using the three-, six-, and nine-month notification schedule depending upon length of service in the position, as outlined in the Notice subsection of 3.3.3. 

Guidelines for Appointment and Promotion 

Librarian/Archivist I. This is an entry-level rank. Individuals are not permitted to remain at this rank permanently. A Librarian/Archivist I must submit their dossier for promotion review, at the latest, by the end of their fourth year of service at Librarian/Archivist I rank at Georgia Tech Library. Appointment to this rank requires an appropriate terminal degree, typically an American Library Association (ALA) - accredited master’s degree, a degree in a subject related to archival work, and/or in the appropriate area of specialization. Additional expertise and/or experience may be required for specific positions. Up to two (2) years credit for previous professional experience at this level may be given at the time of employment, in which case such credit must be stated in the offer letter. 

Librarian/Archivist II. This is an intermediate rank. Individuals can stay at this rank permanently. This rank requires an appropriate terminal degree, typically an American Library Association (ALA) - accredited master’s degree, a degree in a subject related to archival work, and/or in the appropriate area of specialization. It also requires consistent and solid performance in primary job functions, with evidence showing the individual’s ability to fulfill the strategic goals of the Library and the Institute. Either evidence of scholarship or evidence of service is required, but not both. Evidence of scholarship or evidence of service should be commensurate with effort distribution. Promotion to the rank of Librarian/Archivist II also requires at least five (5) years of service at the Librarian/Archivist I rank. Up to two (2) years credit for previous professional experience at this level may be given at the time of employment, in which case such credit must be stated in the offer letter. 

Librarian/Archivist III. This is an intermediate rank. Individuals can stay at this rank permanently. This rank requires an appropriate terminal degree, typically an American Library Association (ALA) - accredited master’s degree, a degree in a subject related to archival work, and/or in the appropriate area of specialization. It also requires superior performance in primary job functions, demonstrated by significant contributions to the Library, Institute, and profession. The quality of performance and impact must be recognized by peers through at least two (2), but no more than five (5) external review letters. A strong record of both scholarship and service is required. Evidence of scholarship and evidence of service should be commensurate with effort distribution. Promotion to the rank of Librarian/Archivist III also requires at least five (5) years of service at the Librarian/Archivist II rank and at least ten (10) years of professional experience in general. Up to two years credit for previous professional experience at this level may be given at the time of employment, in which case such credit must be stated in the offer letter. 

Librarian/Archivist IV. This is the highest rank that individuals can achieve at the Library. This rank requires an appropriate terminal degree, typically an American Library Association (ALA) - accredited master’s degree, a degree in a subject related to archival work, and/or in the appropriate area of specialization. It also requires longstanding leadership in consistently improving and innovating library services, broadening the impact of library programs, and strengthening the Institute’s reputation. Individuals at this level maintain the highest standards of professional practice, and their outstanding contributions to the Library, Institute, and profession are recognized widely as verified by peers through at least three (3) but no more than five (5) external review letters. A record of excellence in both scholarship and service is required. Evidence of scholarship and evidence of service should be commensurate with effort distribution. Promotion to the rank of Librarian/Archivist IV also requires at least five (5) years of service at Georgia Tech Library at the Librarian/Archivist III rank and at least fifteen (15) years of professional experience in general. 

Promotion Procedures 

Candidate’s Responsibility 

Preparation of the promotion dossier is the responsibility of the candidate in consultation with their supervisor. The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, with the exception of external evaluation letters. When the documentation is complete and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that the dossier is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Library for submission of the required documentation, consideration of promotion may be delayed until the following year. 

The candidate’s promotion dossier should include at a minimum the following information: 

• Coversheet 

• Biosketch 

• Current position description 

• Personal narrative 

• Curriculum vitae 

• CV addendum or updates (if applicable) 

• Teaching and training assessment (if applicable) 

• Statement of Completeness 

• Waiver of Access form 

• List of five (5) potential external reviewers (if applicable) 

• Examples of relevant creative work 

The candidate may withdraw their promotion package at any time prior to receipt of the final decision by the Provost. 

External Peer Review 

For promotion to Librarian/Archivist III and Librarian/Archivist IV, external letters of evaluation are required. A minimum of two (2) letters, of which at least one (1) letter should be from an individual external to the Institute, must be included in each dossier for promotion to Librarian/Archivist III. A minimum of three (3) letters, of which at least two (2) should be from individuals external to the Institute, must be included in each dossier for promotion to Librarian/Archivist IV. 

The supervisor (and/or appropriate associate dean) and candidate should jointly develop the list of five (5) potential external reviewers and submit the list to the Library Faculty Review Committee, which will request the letters of review using the External Review Request Letter Template. 

All candidates will be asked to sign a waiver indicating whether or not the candidate “waives all rights to see the identity of the external letter writers and/or the content of their letters.” The waiver form with the candidate’s decision will be included in the dossier. 

Internal Review 

Each candidate’s dossier must go through the following stages of internal review before reaching the Provost for a decision. 

1. First-level Review – Supervisor and/or Associate Dean. Based on the candidate’s dossier, the supervisor will provide a letter of evaluation addressed to the Dean of Libraries. This letter should provide an analysis of the candidate’s experience and performance using the relevant criteria related to their position. If the supervisor is not an Associate Dean, an appropriate Associate Dean may comment briefly (one paragraph) on the supervisor’s letter to either agree or disagree with the supervisor’s evaluation. This letter from the supervisor will be added to the candidate’s dossier. 

2. Library Faculty Review Committee. The Dean of Libraries will convene the review committee(s) of elected faculty members, which may include faculty members from outside the Library at the Professor or Principal level for non-tenure track faculty. After deliberations, the committee will conduct an official vote, record the vote on the coversheet, and describe the rationale of the vote in a recommendation letter addressed to the Dean of Libraries. This letter should include the date of deliberation and the vote. Where the vote is split, the views of members who voted with the minority should be represented in the letter if at all possible. Any conflicts of interest addressed in the committee’s work should also be described. This letter from the Library Faculty Review Committee will be added to the candidate’s dossier. 

3. Dean of Libraries. The Dean of Libraries will write a letter to the Provost summarizing the main strengths and/or weaknesses of the case and where the Dean agrees with or differs from the previous levels of review. The Dean’s recommendation is recorded in the letter and on the coversheet. This letter from the Dean of Libraries will be added to the candidate’s dossier. 

Institute Review 

Institute Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Review Committee. The Dean of Libraries will forward the completed dossier to the Provost through the Office of Faculty Affairs for final review by the Institute Non-Tenure Track Promotion Committee and the Provost. The final outcome of the decision is communicated in writing to the Dean of Libraries, who in turn communicates the decision to the candidate at the end of the review process. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

After the final promotion decision has been made and communicated in writing to the candidate through the Dean of Libraries, it is important for the faculty member to receive additional feedback regarding the assessments received. The candidate’s supervisor will also receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by the Institute Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Promotion Review Committee and all other reviewers (with the exception of any external peer review letters). At the end of the review process, the supervisor will review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately. 

In cases of denial of promotion, the candidate will be counseled concerning the reasons for the negative decision. 

The candidate may withdraw their promotion package at any time prior to submission of the package to the Office of the Provost. 

Qualifications
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Sections 8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.3

Minimum employment qualifications for all academic ranks within the Institute shall be: 

• Consistent with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ requirements for institutional accreditation, 

• Evidence of ability as a teacher, 

• Evidence of ability and activity as a scholar in all other aspects of duties assigned, 

• Successful experience (this must necessarily be waived in the case of those just entering the academic profession who meet all other requirements), 

• Desirable personal qualities judged on the basis of personal interview, complete biographical data, and recommendations, and 

• Consistent with Board of Regents policy for Research Universities, initial appointees to the associate or full professorial rank should have the terminal degree in the appropriate discipline or equivalent in training, ability, or experience. 

Evidence of current academic credentials (or equivalents) shall be maintained by the Institute for all Faculty members, including any part time, temporary, or visiting instructors. 

Hiring with Probationary Credit 

A maximum of three years of probationary credit towards promotion may be awarded for service at other institutions or service in a faculty rank within the Institute can be established only at the time of the individual’s initial appointment. In extraordinary cases, more than three years of probationary credit towards promotion at initial faculty appointment may be awarded, but such awards require approval by the President and written notification to the USG Chief Academic Officer. Without the approval of the President, faculty given probationary credit towards promotion may not use their years of credit towards consideration for early promotion. 

Individuals serving in part-time, limited term, or full-time temporary positions are not eligible for probationary credit toward tenure or probationary credit towards promotion. 

Hiring with Tenure 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Handbook, in exceptional cases the Georgia Institute of Technology may recommend to the Board of Regents that an outstanding distinguished senior Faculty member be awarded tenure upon the Faculty member’s initial appointment. Each such recommendation shall be considered by the Board individually and shall be granted only in cases in which the Faculty member, at a minimum, is appointed as an Associate or Professor, was already tenured at a prior institution, and brings a demonstrably national or international reputation to Georgia Tech. 

Procedures 

In cases where an Instructional Unit of Georgia Tech wishes to pursue hiring with tenure, the following procedures should be followed: 

• The Academic Head (Dean/Chair) responsible for the hire should prepare a written letter making the case for hiring with tenure. This letter, along with a complete Biographical Sketch or curriculum vitae detailing the relevant career activities of the individual should be forwarded to a committee of the Faculty for review. 

• A committee of the Faculty should review the qualifications of the candidate and render a consultative vote as to whether the candidate should be hired with tenure. This committee may be a standing Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) committee within the unit or an ad hoc committee of the Faculty organized to review the case for tenure upon appointment. Members of an ad hoc committee must meet the Instructional Unit’s qualifications to sit on an RPT committee in that Unit. In any case, the committee members should be elected by the Unit’s faculty. The committee should review all of the application materials submitted by the candidate, and may request additional materials (e.g., written letters of reference). 

• The Faculty committee should use the appropriate criteria for appointment and tenure at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor as established in this Handbook and as may be further specified within the unit considering the candidate. 

• The committee should prepare a written letter to the Academic Head of the Instructional Unit and record its vote on the case for tenure on appointment. 

• The letter from the Academic Head (Dean/Chair) and the letter from the Faculty committee should be forwarded to the Provost and Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs for their review and final determination whether the Institute will petition the Board of Regents for tenure upon appointment. 

Joint Appointments 

Joint appointments must involve a budgetary commitment to the individual by each Unit. Normally, this would involve teaching and/or research activity. Each Faculty member with a joint appointment should have a Home Unit which has responsibility for administrative activity for the individual. Promotion, tenure, and reappointment decisions should involve all affected Units. 

Instances may arise where it is appropriate for a research titled Faculty member who is not in an Instructional Unit to have a joint appointment in an Instructional Unit. Such arrangements are to be encouraged where they work to the advantage of all parties concerned. The head of the Instructional Unit in which the joint appointment is held will be expected to supply letters of evaluation for all promotion/salary decisions. Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is not an Instructional Unit. 

Salary
The salary level associated with each Faculty position shall be based upon the general principles set out in Section 3.1.2.  In addition, the following specific criteria shall be utilized for salary determinations for Tenure-Track Faculty:

Documentation
In determining entry level salary as well as merit increases, appropriate documentation in support of quality of performance is required. The following is illustrative:

Instruction: The quality of instructional performance should be evaluated by peers, Students, and Unit Heads. Student evaluation should be ascertained on a systematic basis.

Contribution to curriculum development, such as the development of new courses or new laboratory experiences, should be evaluated by the Unit Head.

The number of independent study courses, theses, dissertations, etc., supervised. Quality should be evaluated by peers and the Unit Head.

Creativity: The number and brief description of research grants applied for and funded; publications in scholarly journals; and presentations at conferences and workshops. The quality of these contributions should be evaluated by recognized leaders in the field.

Professional honors and awards as well as invited addresses speak to the quality of the contribution. Innovative instructional techniques can be evaluated by peers, Students, and Unit Heads.

Service: The quality of service to Students, such as academic advising, directing field trips, etc., should be evaluated by Students, peers, and Unit Heads.

Service to the academic community might take the form of presenting lectures or seminars or serving on various types of committees. Appropriate documentation might be letters from those persons responsible for the activities.

Service to the Institute might involve such things as working on programs with Communications and Development, alumni organizations, or serving on various Institute committees. Appropriate documentation about quality of service might take the form of letters from the persons responsible for these activities or the chairs of the committees.

Contributions to the profession or discipline might take a number of forms: serving in leadership positions, participating in symposia or serving on panels, or editing professional journals. Appropriate letters regarding the quality of contributions would be expected.

Evaluation of quality of service to the community might be ascertained from letters from appropriate individuals. The service might take the form of presenting lectures, participating in panel discussions, appearing on appropriate radio and television programs, or judging science fairs.

Faculty Summer Salaries
Payment of compensation to Tenure-Track Faculty members for full-time employment during the summer session shall be at a rate not to exceed one-third (1/3) of their regular nine months compensation for the previous academic year.

Merit Increases
Merit increases for full-time Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty shall be based on the same principles applicable to all Faculty members, but shall consider weights especially appropriate in Instructional Units.

Annual Reviews
In addition to the general principles set out in Section 3.1.2, evaluation criteria for Tenure-Track Faculty follow those used for promotion, tenure, and salary decisions as set out further above and in Section 3.3.7. In each particular case, the criteria used will be ones appropriate to the individual’s major responsibilities.

The requirement for regular evaluations extends to all instructional Faculty whether they are tenured, non-tenured, part-time, temporary, or visiting. If a person is the instructor of record during the year, that individual will receive an evaluation by means regularly used to assess the teaching effectiveness of full-time faculty, as set out further in Section 3.3.7 of this Handbook. Each College will set out in written policies how the evaluations will be carried out for those teaching courses in their purview.

Procedures on Reappointment 

Administrative Evaluations 

Tenure-track faculty without tenure shall be evaluated annually by their Unit Head(s). These annual evaluations of tenure-track faculty without tenure shall encompass the following: a) teaching; b) student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service; c) research/scholarship; d) professional service; and e) professional growth appropriate to the Institute, college, or school. These annual evaluations must conform to the procedures detailed in 3.1.2.1.  All administrative reviews must utilize the following Likert scale:  

1 — Does Not Meet Expectations 

2 — Needs Improvement 

3 — Meets Expectations 

4 — Exceeds Expectations 

5 — Exemplary 

Noteworthy achievement is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory are reflective of a 1 or 2 on the above Likert scale. 

For the first three (3) reappointment cycles, the Unit Head(s) shall review the credentials and work of the individual Faculty member and make a recommendation regarding reappointment. If the recommendation is positive, the Dean(s) (where not the Unit Head) shall review the recommendation and documentation. If the Dean's recommendation is positive, then the President shall review the recommendations and make a decision. 

In the event that any of these decisions is not to reappoint, the appropriate Unit Committee, the College Committee (where appropriate), and the Provost's Advisory Committee shall be convened and a complete review by all committees shall be conducted and forwarded to the President. 

It is expected that this process will be completed at the Unit level in time to coincide with the annual evaluation process and the recommendation of salary increases. Each unit will publish, no later than the mid-point of the summer semester, the schedule for the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process for the following academic year. 

For joint appointments, this process shall be modified so that the elected committee established shall include at least one individual from each Unit where the Faculty member holds an appointment, as well as all Unit Heads involved. 

Critical Reviews 

The purpose of the third year Critical Review is to provide a rigorous analysis and detailed feedback of the faculty member’s body of work in the areas of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service towards tenure. All previous annual evaluations must be part of the review. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward tenure and promotion. 

In the spring of the third year, a complete review of the Faculty member's credentials and intellectual contributions shall be conducted by the appropriate elected Faculty committee at the Unit level (or in the case of a joint appointment, the appropriate joint committee), the Unit Head(s), the Dean's Committee and the Dean (in those units having organizational elements such as schools or departments), and then by the Provost's Committee. Each recommendation will specify one (1) of four (4) outcomes: 

• 'Reappointment'. 

• 'Reappointment with counseling' which implies that academic performance, in most respects, is positive and appropriate, but that some 'mid-course corrections' are needed prior to the tenure decision. 

• 'Reappointment with warning' which implies that, as the candidate moves toward the tenure decision, some substantial adjustments must be made in the academic performance if the outcome of that decision is to be positive. 

• 'Non-reappointment' which means that the candidate should expect no contract to be offered beyond the following academic year. 

All these recommendations shall be forwarded to the President who shall make the decision and then inform the appropriate individuals. This review should coincide with the annual salary review at the Unit level. A complete review may be conducted during the fifth year at the request of the candidate. 

If the Critical Review at the end of the third year (as described above) results in a positive reappointment decision, the fourth year and fifth year reviews will be processed in the same way that the Administrative Reviews are conducted. If the decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fourth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. Similarly, if the fourth-year decision is 'reappoint with warning' then the fifth-year review process will be the same as the third year Critical Review. 

The committee appointed to review the Faculty member's contributions will avail itself of the opportunity to review carefully the materials submitted by the individual and to comment in detail on the intellectual products of the candidate. Because this committee will be comprised of individuals who are knowledgeable in the field, the committee will have the responsibility of placing the candidate's contributions in context and to comment on the importance of the work. The Unit Head(s) should also obtain input from other Faculty members in the Unit regarding the candidate's contribution to teaching and service. This may include a Unit-wide committee to ensure consistency within the Unit across all candidates under review. 

In the event that the Faculty member's service is interrupted by a leave of absence, then that particular year of absence or extension shall not be counted as contributing to the service periods stated in any of the above procedures. In any year of absence or extension, the Faculty member will be reviewed according to regular procedures, except that if a Critical Review would be called for as described above, that review shall be postponed until the next normal year of service. 

Candidate’s Responsibility 

The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for evaluation letters, if applicable. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, the Faculty member will receive a letter of non-reappointment. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 

It is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate person for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the Unit Head(s). The Unit Head shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by each committee and by all other administrators with direct responsibility for reviewing the candidate, including the Dean (for those units where the Dean does not serve as the Unit Head), the Provost, and the President. The Unit Head shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately in a scheduled conference.  

A written report of the faculty member’s progression towards achieving future milestones of tenure must be provided to the faculty member after the conference. The faculty member must sign a statement to the effect that they have been apprised of the content of the Critical Review evaluation.  

The faculty member may respond in writing within ten (10) business days to the Critical Review evaluation. This written response is then attached to the evaluation. The Unit Head(s) must acknowledge in writing within 10 business days receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the written Critical Review evaluation made because of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response.  

This section sets forth guidelines for promotion of Tenure-Track Faculty and criteria to be used in granting of tenure. It is to be emphasized that this document lists criteria intended only as guidelines and not as a prescription for tenure and promotion. The possible factors to be used for evaluation are listed to aid the Faculty in their career development and to be used with, but not substituted for, enlightened judgment on the part of responsible administrators and Faculty in providing for the long-term development of Georgia Tech. (See Sections 3.3.5, 3.3.6, & 3.3.7.) 

Promotion and tenure decisions are made separately, and guidelines for evaluation relative to each of these decisions are required. The philosophy underlying the two decisions differs, although the criteria used as a basis for each decision are similar. The performance of a Faculty member may justify promotion but not the awarding of tenure. The converse can occur, although it is not likely.  

Promotion is based on the intrinsic merit of the individual's work. It recognizes the Faculty member for meeting the criteria of the next higher level in the professional hierarchy. The decision is based on an evaluation of the individual's scholarly activity including a) teaching, b) student success activities, c) research/scholarship/creative activities, d) service, and e) professional development. The decision to promote or not to promote should not be tied in any way to questions of tenure. 

In contrast to promotion, which is based on the merit of the individual’s work, tenure represents the Institute's selection of a Faculty member for a long-term commitment. Individuals are selected whose performance is outstanding and whose capabilities and interests, as manifested in performance, most closely support the objectives of the Institute, the College, and the Instructional Unit. The decision is based on an assessment of the compatibility of the individual's performance and interest with the needs and objectives of the Institute, the college, and the individual Instructional Unit. 

For a Faculty member to be considered for tenure, the individual's performance must be judged to be at or above the level appropriate to their professorial rank. That judgment should be based on the criteria set forth in the "Guidelines for Promotion at Georgia Tech" (see Section 3.3.6). All dimensions of the performance must be considered, that is teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship/creative activities, service, and professional development. In appraising a candidate's qualifications for tenure, the weighting of the five (5) categories set forth above may vary for each case. It is recognized that the Institute has varied responsibilities and these responsibilities may best be met by a Faculty whose members have a mix of strengths. Given an appropriate level of performance, the primary criterion for tenure is the compatibility of the individual's performance and interests with the objectives of the Unit, the College, and the Institute. Statements and supporting documentation from the candidate, the Unit Head, and the Dean should address this question. Assuming an appropriate performance level, the individual's professorial activity is evaluated relative to its compatibility with stated objectives. 

Each Instructional Unit should have a set of clearly defined and prioritized objectives defined in accordance with the mission of that Unit. The more clearly and specifically the objectives are articulated, the more precisely can an individual's capability and interest be compared to those objectives. The objectives are not static; however, they must be influenced or modified by factors such as changing enrollment patterns and changes in the unit's and Georgia Tech's mission within the University System of Georgia. Modifications in objectives typically occur gradually, not instantaneously, thus permitting faculty awareness of the changes. 

Tenure resides at the Institutional level. Institutional responsibility for employment of a tenured individual is to the extent of continued employment on a 100% workload basis for two (2) out of every three (3) consecutive academic terms (normally for fall and spring terms) until retirement, dismissal for cause, release because of financial exigency, or program modification as determined by the Board of Regents.

These guidelines are in full accord with the policies and procedures of the Board of Regents; however, the Georgia Tech criteria are more demanding than those established by the Regents.  These guidelines are intended to aid Tenure-Track Faculty in the conduct of their affairs in order to satisfy the requirements for promotion and/or tenure. They are not, however, a substitute for the advice and counsel of the Unit Head. All Faculty members should receive at a minimum an annual administrative review of their progress.

Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.7

Criteria

Minimum expectations in all professorial ranks are:

• Superior teaching, demonstrating excellence in instruction;
• Outstanding involvement in student success activities, as evidenced by activities within 
  teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service;
• Academic achievement, as appropriate to the mission;
• Outstanding service to the Institute, profession or community; and
• Professional growth and development, within the context of rank and responsibilities.

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7. 

Noteworthy achievement is required in at least two of the above categories but is not required in all categories. A written recommendation should be submitted by the head of the unit concerned setting forth the reasons for granting tenure. The Faculty member's length of service with the institute shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the faculty member should be granted tenure. 

In addition to the minimum criteria above, tenure at the rank of Associate Professor requires the earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience. Neither the possession of a doctorate nor longevity of service is a guarantee per se of being granted tenure. 

Extension of the Probationary Period for Tenure 

The five (5) year probationary period must be continuous except that a maximum of two (2) years interruption because of a leave of absence or alternative service may be permitted, provided, however, that an award of credit for the period of an interruption shall be at the discretion of the President. In all cases in which a leave of absence is based on birth or adoption of a child, serious disability, or prolonged illness of the employee or immediate family member, the five (5) year probationary period may be suspended during the leave of absence. Extension of the probationary period changes only the year in which consideration for tenure is required, not the year in which the individual is eligible to be considered for tenure. 

Purpose 
The Georgia Institute of Technology has a critical interest in attracting and retaining a Faculty of the highest quality. This interest is enhanced by ensuring that Faculty members are promoted and tenured in ways that are fair and humane. To ensure equity in administering the system of academic tenure, the Institute must provide consistent conditions and standards while supporting members in balancing personal and family obligations with professional and scholarly achievement. For these reasons, extensions of the probationary period for tenure are reserved for compelling circumstances which impair the ability of an individual to establish the stature expected of Faculty members at Georgia Tech within the normal time frame. 

Conditions 
Approvals of extensions of the probationary period are never automatic but may be granted when circumstances cause substantial impairment of a candidate’s ability to pursue their teaching and scholarly activities. Such circumstances may include severe personal illness, childbirth, adoption, or other significant obligations to a member of the family or household. The probationary period may not be interrupted for more than one (1) year per event with a maximum extension of two (2) years. 

If an extension is granted, no additional requirements for tenure can be imposed upon the candidate by virtue of the extension. Thus, the candidate continues to be subject to the requirements to which they would have been subject without the extension. 

The terms and conditions of this policy apply equally to all genders. 

Procedures 
Requests for an extension of the probationary period must be made in writing and submitted to the appropriate Unit Head (Dean/Chair) who will review the request. All requests must be made within twelve (12) months of the event related to the extension request. Any supporting documentation should be attached to the request. Requests are not granted automatically. Generally, however, Georgia Tech will attempt to provide extensions to all candidates who are making good progress and are requesting an extension due to childbirth or adoption. Other circumstances warranting extension are considered equally valid but must, necessarily, be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Every effort should be made to accommodate a request when it becomes clear that circumstances, consistent with this policy, will substantially impede the Faculty member’s progress toward achieving indefinite tenure or promotion. 

The Unit Head will forward the request to the appropriate Dean along with an evaluative statement addressing the Faculty member’s scholarly progress. The Dean will make a recommendation and forward this request to the Provost for final action. Consistency with Board of Regents’ policy dictates a required leave to be comprised of sick leave or other alternatives. 

Unit Heads who recognize the need for a Faculty member to request an interruption of the probationary period are encouraged to discuss this policy with that individual and to do so in a timely manner. Faculty members should feel free to approach their Unit Heads for information concerning this policy or with individual requests for extension. 

Administrative reviews will continue to occur on a regular basis and are unaffected by this policy. Critical reviews, however, will be delayed with the probationary period extension. 

Criteria
Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.6

Minimum expectations in all professorial ranks are: 

• Excellent teaching and effectiveness in instruction; 

• Noteworthy involvement in student success activities, as evidenced by activities within teaching and instruction, academic achievement, and service; 

• Noteworthy professional service to the Institute and/or the community; 

• Noteworthy research, scholarship, creative activity or academic achievement; and 

• Continuous professional growth and development, within the context of rank and responsibilities. 

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7.  

Noteworthy achievement in all of the above areas is not required but should be demonstrated in at least three (3) areas. A written recommendation should be submitted by the head of the unit concerned setting forth the reasons for promotion. The Faculty member’s length of service with the Institute shall be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the faculty member should be promoted. 

In accordance with Regents’ policy for Research Universities, promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor additionally requires the earned doctorate or its equivalent in training, ability, and/or experience. Neither the possession of a doctorate nor longevity of service is a guarantee per se of promotion. 

Guidelines for Promotion 

From Instructor to Assistant Professor 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Clear evidence of effective teaching and involvement in student success activities; and 

• Clear evidence of creativity. 

From Assistant to Associate Professor 

• Sufficient time in rank. Generally, five (5) or more years in rank are expected. Four (4) years in rank at the time of promotion, at least two (2) of them at Georgia Tech, or two (2) years of relevant professional experience plus two (2) years as an Assistant Professor at Georgia Tech, are a minimum requirement. Credit for previous academic or professional experience must be explicitly stated at the time of employment. Faculty may be considered for promotion with less than the required minimum four years in rank listed above. However, these cases would require strong justification and prior approval by the president before the promotion documentation is submitted; 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Clear evidence of effective teaching and involvement in student success activities; 

• Clear evidence of creativity while at Georgia Tech; and 

• Clear evidence of contributions to Georgia Tech in meaningful ways by service to the Institute, to the public, or to appropriate professional organizations. 

A candidate for promotion to Associate Professor should satisfy the first four (4) of these qualifications. Marginal qualifications in any of these areas might be compensated for by strength in the fifth. 

From Associate Professor to Professor 

• Sufficient time in rank. Generally, six (6) or more years in rank are expected. Four (4) years of relevant professional experience at the time of promotion, at least two (2) of them at Georgia Tech, or two (2) years of relevant professional experience plus two (2) years as an Associate Professor at Georgia Tech are considered a minimum requirement before promotion. Credit for previous academic or professional experience should be explicitly stated at the time of employment. Faculty may be considered for promotion with less than the required minimum four years in rank listed above. However, these cases would require strong justification and prior approval by the president before the promotion documentation is submitted; 

• A doctorate in an appropriate discipline or experience which is of value comparable to the doctorate in preparing the candidate for the role of an educator; 

• Significant contributions as an educator; 

• Clear evidence of significant involvement in student success activities; 

• Clear evidence of significant creativity; 

• Evidence that the candidate is making substantial contributions to Georgia Tech by service to the Institute, to the public, or to the profession; and 

• Broad recognition in terms of visiting professorships, invitations to give papers or seminars, memberships on national committees, offices in professional societies, or other appropriate honors. 

A candidate for promotion to Professor should satisfy clearly the first five (5) of these qualifications and should have some demonstrable accomplishments in the sixth and seventh. 

Evaluation of Faculty Members as Teachers and Educators 
Criteria for effective teaching are difficult to define. As a minimum an effective teacher should continue to become more proficient in the subject matter and more efficient in achieving the objective of the courses being taught. An effective teacher should be able, especially, to motivate students to do their best and to respond favorably to the teacher's enthusiasm for the subject. 

The concept of educator implies a broad perspective toward higher education that encompasses more than effective teaching. It involves such things as leadership in developing new educational programs, including postgraduate educational programs, attracting graduate Students, developing new laboratory experiments, etc. 

Listed below (with no attempt to suggest any rank order) are types of evidence that may be used to evaluate the performance of a Faculty member as teacher and educator: 

Course and Curriculum Development 

• Development of new courses and laboratory experiences or new approaches to teaching. 

• Extensive work in curriculum revision or teaching methods for the school or department. 

Teaching Skills and Methods 

• Relative performances of students in the candidate sections of multi-section courses. 

• Participation in programs, conferences, or workshops designed to improve teaching skills. 

• Awards or other forms of recognition for outstanding teaching. 

• Systematic Student evaluations, such as exit interviews or other standardized questionnaires. Information such as percentage of Students providing data and a copy of evaluation instructions must be provided. (See Student Opinion of Courses and Instructors below). 

• Demonstrated ability to teach basic courses effectively at the undergraduate and at the graduate level (when appropriate) where such courses are offered in the disciplines. 

• Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively in the classroom environment. 

Generation of Textbooks, Instruction Materials, and Publications on Teaching 

• Publication of books or articles on teaching methods. 

• Publication of new instructional techniques or descriptions of laboratory materials (if not listed under Creative Activities). 

• Publication of textbooks (if not listed under Creative Activities). 

• Effective utilization of audio-visual aids and multi-media where appropriate. 

• Expository articles of broad interest exemplifying command of subject, breadth of perspective, etc. 

Evaluation of Creative Contributions 
While difficult to define precisely, creativity is characterized by the making of original and innovative contributions. The nature of the creative work must be appropriate to the individual's discipline. Moreover, it must be shown that significant creative activity has been performed while at Georgia Tech. To provide objective evaluation of creative activities, external peer review normally is required. The review should be based only on the individual's work and should not include opinions regarding promotion or tenure. A brief description of the reviewer, including positions and title, should be included. In general, the quality of such activities is of more importance than the sheer quantity. In cases where the creative work is a joint effort with others, there must be clear evidence that the individual under consideration has taken a leading role in conducting the work. 

The creative work may be in a variety of forms. The nature of the material offered, and the relative weight assigned to the various types of activity will vary among disciplines. Some examples of creative activities that may be appropriate at this institution are as follows: 

Publications 

• Research papers in scholarly journals, literary publications, and books. 

Unpublished Writings and Creative Work of Limited Circulation 

• Technical reports, engineering and architectural designs, and grant applications. 

• Inventions leading to patents. 

• Presentations at conferences and meetings. 

Creative Educational Contributions 

• Innovative teaching methods, research in instructional techniques, and textbooks. 

Artistic Creations 

• Paintings, sculpture, and music. 

External Recognition of Creative Work 

• Prizes and awards, invited presentations, and consultancies. 

• For promotion to the rank of Associate Professor there should be clear evidence that the person has demonstrated an ability to make original and innovative contributions to a chosen field. 

• For promotion to Professor there should be clear evidence that the person has demonstrated consistent performance in the making of original and innovative contributions that are nationally recognized for their excellence. 

At all levels, the candidate’s creative accomplishments throughout their entire career should be considered and special attention given to those that occurred at Georgia Tech. 

Student Success Activities 

Activities that faculty members perform that contribute to student success encompass a wide spectrum of formal and informal interactions with students. Student success activities most generally relate to teaching, creative and scholarly activities, and service, though faculty should feel free to think more holistically about this category. For the purposes of this evaluation, “students” can include a broad group of learners that are engaged in our academic programs such as participants in life-long learning programs and individuals in training programs such as postdoctoral scholars. 

Examples of some activities that contribute to student success goals are listed below.  

• Involvement in High Impact Practices (HIP) such as first-year experiences, living learning communities, undergraduate research, study abroad, internships, service/community learning, and project-based and capstone courses.  

• Contributions in Learning and Education such as course or curricular design; academic or career advising; recruiting and supporting a diverse student community; and integrating research into student learning. 

• Supportive Student Service Activities such as advising a student organization; serving on student-focused committees; participation in camps and pre-college programs; and, participating in programs for students with historically underserved backgrounds or identities. 

• Research Mentorship such as research, academic, and professional skill development; career guidance; and modeling behavior described in the “Advisor-Advisee Expectations” section of the Georgia Tech catalog.  

• Faculty Professional Development such as accessing resource materials or participating in professional development programs that improve teaching and mentorship of students.  

Faculty members are afforded the discretion to determine the student success activities that they undertake, though faculty members who serve the role as the primary advisor in research must be evaluated on their activities on mentorship in research. More examples are given in the Student Success Activities Guidance document available from the Provost’s office.  

Evaluation of Service Activities 
While Faculty members usually contribute to the Institute primarily through teaching and creative activities, they also may contribute significantly to the development of Georgia Tech through rendering appropriate types of service to the Institute, to the public, and to the professional organizations to which they belong. 

• Professional Education 
  There is a rapidly escalating need for postgraduate professional education opportunities for persons to deepen, broaden, and raise the level of their knowledge and understanding, both in their professional field and in general. For this reason, Faculty participation in professional education activities constitutes a service to the public, to professional fields which seek to serve that public, and to the Institute. 

• Service to the Academic Community 
  Presenting lectures, participating in seminars, developing research proposals with other faculty members, serving on committees, study groups and task forces, and lending one's professional expertise to other faculty members for their benefit. The quality of the member's participation in such activities should be documented. 

• Service to the Institute 
  Significant service to the offices of the Institute, such as Institute Relations and Development, the Alumni Association, the Athletic Board, Education Extension teaching, special student services, recruitment, and similar activities; and serving on various Institute committees. Documentation of these activities should include statements regarding the frequency of meetings, records of attendance, offices held, contributions to special reports, etc. 

• Availability for Service Activities 
  Maintaining regular office hours and expressing willingness to serve whenever opportunities are available. Documentation should include a statement from the Unit Head. 

• Service to the Profession 
  Membership in professional organizations; attendance at professional meetings and conferences, organizing professional meetings, serving as a discussant of papers read by others at professional meetings or being a panel member at such meetings, holding office in professional organizations; contributing consultative, advisory, editorial service in a professional capacity’ and serving as site visitor for accreditation review. Documentation should include appropriate records, awards, or other forms of recognition. 

• Service to the Community 
  Community Service involves a wide range of activities directed toward local, state, or national groups. Examples of such service include: 

  • Lectures, 

  • Panel discussions, 

  • Radio and television appearances, 

  • Membership on advisory boards or civic committees, 

  • Involvement in community, charitable organizations, or the government, 

  • Involvement in youth and citizen recreation programs, and 

  • Advising students or judging the entries at science fairs. 

Appropriate documentation of service activities should be included. For persons being considered for promotion to Associate Professor, the rendering of service in any of these categories is appropriate. For persons being considered for promotion to the rank of Professor, participation in service activities is required, and some form of leadership activity is expected. 

Student Opinion of Courses and Instructors 
To provide instructors with information about Student opinions of their teaching and courses, the Institute has developed the Course/Instructor Opinion Survey (CIOS). Provision is also made for written comments from the students. 

The surveys are conducted on-line, and instructors may access the results for their courses on-line. 

Unit Heads receive the responses to the Institute core items, and any optional questions from the respective units; however, they receive neither the responses to any additional optional items the instructors may have elected to include, nor the written comments. Students have access to the responses to the core Institute questions if the response rate is over a threshold requirement. 

The results of the CIOS serve as one (1) component of an overall assessment system for documenting teaching proficiency. The survey, processed in the Office of Academic Effectiveness, is administered in each School or College on a systematic basis at the end of each term. CIOS scores themselves cannot be used to justify a 1 or 2 rating for Teaching on the Likert scale; another independent measure must be provided.  

Candidate’s Responsibility 
The candidate has the responsibility to prepare, review, and submit all required documentation and materials, except for evaluation letters. However, the list provided by the candidate for external evaluators should be included in the package. When this documentation is complete, and in the proper format, the candidate will sign a statement that it is both accurate and complete. 

Should the candidate fail to meet the deadlines established by the Unit for submission of the required documentation, consideration of promotion and/or tenure may be delayed until the following year. However, if such a delay would have the effect of violating the maximum time of employment for an untenured Faculty member, the Faculty member will receive a letter of non-reappointment. 

Format for Promotion and/or Tenure Packages: Guidelines for Candidates 
It is important that all candidates follow as closely as possible the same format in preparing the documentation for promotion and/or tenure packages, although some flexibility should be allowed. All candidates must include a copy of their curriculum vitae. The candidates should also write a brief summary of their major accomplishments at Georgia Tech with regard to teaching, research, student success activities, and service. For faculty who serve as the primary advisor of a graduate student or postdoctoral scholar, this narrative should include a discussion of their mentorship in research. These personal narratives shall be three (3) to five (5) pages with one-inch margins, standard single-spaced, and 10-point minimum font. The candidates also are required to submit evidence of three (3) to five (5) examples of their relevant, creative capabilities. These may include published papers, books, software, patents, art productions, or other relevant examples. 

Format for Promotion and/or Tenure Packages: Guidelines for Units 
It is appropriate that each set of documents prepared by a Unit be preceded by letters of transmittal from the Unit Head, and from the Committee referenced in Internal Peer Review Section below, and the Peer Review Committee of that School. These will include comments regarding whether a candidate meets the required qualifications for each separate point of the promotion and/or tenure guidelines (See Sections 3.3.5 & 3.3.6). These comments should be brief and highlight the more significant contributions in each area. The presentation should be written so that the merits of the case are fully apparent to persons who may not be familiar with the discipline of the individual under consideration. Comparison of the relative merits of multiple candidates from within the department is encouraged. 

The letter of transmittal should be followed by a curriculum vitae, prepared by the candidate, detailing the relevant career activities of the individual. Finally, the package may include further relevant documentation such as letters of evaluation, student evaluations, the candidate’s annual evaluation materials since the last RPT event with at most the last five years-worth of reviews included, and, if unavoidable, copies of unpublished creative work. 

External Peer Review 
Letters of recommendation from appropriate individuals outside the Institute must be obtained by the Unit for any decisions related to tenure or promotion. The individuals from whom letters are sought should be clear leaders in the field. Brief biographical sketches of these individuals should be included in the materials submitted for consideration, as well as the letters received. Generally, the letter writers should not have a personal or professional connection to the candidates (e.g., dissertation advisor, postdoctoral mentor, research collaborator). If letters from such individuals are included, they must be in addition to those normally required, identified as such, and filed separately from other external letters. A justification for including letters from these individuals must be included in the package. 

The list of individuals from whom letters are to be obtained should be developed jointly by the candidates for promotion and/or tenure and the Unit Head(s). The final decision regarding who shall be selected to provide recommendations from the list shall rest with the Unit Head(s) and the Faculty committee. It is appropriate to use the same letter for two (2) consecutive years of the process. 

A candidate for Promotion and Tenure may request that a particular individual not be contacted as an external reviewer. Such requests are typically honored. If the School Chair or Dean concludes that circumstances require use of that reviewer, the letter must be in addition to those normally required, identified as such, and filed separately from the other external letters. A justification for including the letter must be included in the package. 

External evaluations shall be solicited by the Unit Head(s) and supplied to the office of the Dean. These letters shall be solicited with the understanding that, insofar as possible, access to them will be limited to persons involved in the promotion/tenure decision. 

All candidates will be asked to sign a waiver indicating whether or not the candidate “waives all rights to see the identity of the external letter writers and/or the content of their letters.” The waiver form with the candidate's decision will be included in the package. 

Internal Peer Review 
Each College (or Unit within a College) should determine and publish appropriate measures of scholarly impact of Faculty candidates for Promotion and Tenure. Each Promotion and Tenure package should include an explicit discussion of the impact of the candidate’s scholarship relative to the College’s or Unit’s measure of impact. 

The first-level Peer Review Committee should be tailored for each candidate so that it is composed of Faculty in the same or related fields or technical interest areas. The Unit Head typically appoints this committee in consultation with the unit RPT Committee. Candidates shall have the opportunity to suggest to the Unit Head(s) the names of individuals who would be appropriate members of the committee. For joint appointments, input should be obtained from the Faculty of both units. In the event that the individual units do not have appropriate expertise relating to the candidate’s specific creative contributions, the committee may include individuals who are not members of the Georgia Tech faculty. 

RPT Committee Peer Review

The unit’s RPT committee will also review the candidate’s materials to provide some consistency across the unit and to comment on the teaching and service contributions of the candidate, as well as those activities described in this Handbook.

Unit RPT Committee Composition

• Unit RPT committees shall be elected on an annual basis by the tenure-track faculty within a Unit. The election shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted by the Unit’s elected Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC). The FAC will also arbitrate and decide any issues with the election. The Unit Head may appoint additional members in consultation with the Unit’s elected RPT committee to balance the committee with respect to sub-disciplines and other relevant aspects, such that no more than one-third of the total number of the RPT committee members shall be appointed by the Unit Head. The Unit’s FAC, in consultation with the Unit’s faculty, will determine the total number of RPT committee members and the distribution of associate and full professors. All members of the RPT must be tenured faculty members. The RPT committee will elect its own chair.
• If a Unit has fewer than ten (10) tenured faculty members and those faculty members are not evenly distributed between associate and full professor ranks so as to accomplish fair and impartial reviews, then the Unit may choose to elect members from the Unit’s College to complete the RPT committee.
• A committee of the whole (i.e., all tenured faculty members within a Unit) meets the requirements of this section, if it is elected by the Unit’s tenure-track faculty members.
• For evaluations of full professors and for promotion to full professor, only full professors may participate. For evaluations of associate and assistant professors, any member of the committee may participate.

Decisions Involving Joint Appointments

A committee drawn from appropriate individuals of each Unit shall be established to provide recommendations. In the event that individual Units do not have appropriate expertise related to the candidate's specific creative contributions, a special committee shall be constituted and may include individuals who are not members of the Georgia Tech Faculty. The composition of this committee is governed by this Handbook. All Unit Heads involved jointly shall provide recommendations. These recommendations then will be passed along to the next level(s) as appropriate.

Joint Academic/GTRI/Center Appointments 
Promotion and/or tenure decisions of academic Units will be based on their own criteria; however, letters of evaluation from appropriate GTRI Unit Heads and/or Center Directors must be included in the documentation of these candidates. Appropriate individuals from GTRI or the Center normally will be included in the unit-level committees appointed to make the initial recommendation. 

The Provost and Executive Vice President's Advisory Committee 
The College Deans, the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and senior members of the Faculty representing the Colleges, comprise the advisory committee. The Vice Provost for Faculty may participate in the discussions of the committee but does not vote. Similarly, the college Deans participate in the discussion but do not vote on the candidates from their colleges nor do representatives from a specific unit (such as Physics) vote on Faculty members from that unit. Normally, the Vice Provost for Faculty chairs the meetings. The Committee forwards all packages, along with its recommendations to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. 

Recommendation of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs 
The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs considers all information that has been compiled, transmits the complete package along with their recommendations to the President, and then notifies the college Deans of the recommendations involving Faculty within their respective colleges.  

Final Dispositions and Reports 
Upon approval of the award of tenure and/or promotion to an individual by the President, that individual shall be notified in writing by the President; notification will be forwarded to the Board of Regents. 

An annual report shall be made to the President by each Unit of the Institute on the status of its Faculty. The annual report shall include the numbers of tenured and non-tenured Faculty, by rank. Individuals who have been retained in full-time faculty status at the Institute for a period in excess of seven (7) years without the award of tenure shall be identified by name and justification for such retention given. These reports shall be available for public inspection. 

The Institute shall provide data annually to the Board of Regents, showing the Institute’s tenure rates by gender and race. 

Feedback to Faculty Members 
After the final decision has been made and communicated in a letter from the President, it is important for the Faculty member to receive feedback regarding the assessments involved. The appropriate place for the individual Faculty member to receive this feedback is from the Unit Head(s). The Unit Head shall receive a copy of the recommendations prepared by each committee and by all other administrators with direct responsibility for reviewing the candidate, including the Dean (for those Units where the Dean does not serve as the Unit Head), the Provost, and the President. The Unit Head shall review each recommendation, including their own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately. 

In cases of disapproval of promotion, a candidate shall be counseled concerning the reasons for a negative decision. 

Purpose 
The performance of each academic administrator will be reviewed annually by their supervisor based on criteria related to their duties. In addition, a comprehensive formal review must be completed at the end of every fifth year of appointment for all faculty who have an administrative appointment of 50% or greater, including those who hold tenure. 

The criteria for review will be based on the duties of the administrator as determined on appointment or later updates to those duties. For tenured faculty administrators, the supervisor and faculty member should determine relevant criteria related to traditional faculty activities (i.e., teaching, scholarship and creative activities, student success, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator’s position. These appropriate criteria are included in the annual and comprehensive reviews. (Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to administrators who are tenured faculty members, the annual review process described in the current paragraph will also apply to academic administrators who hold a faculty rank but are not tenured.)   

The purpose of a comprehensive review is to evaluate the progress of the administrator and to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies. It is typical to appoint a tenured or tenured-track administrator for terms of three (3) to five (5) years, and the comprehensive review may be used to determine if the administrator should be appointed for additional terms.  

It is recognized that all administrators, including Deans and School Chairs, serve at the will of their immediate supervisors and higher administrators. Nothing in this review process is meant to limit the ability and responsibility of higher administrators to make changes in leadership positions whenever it is deemed necessary or desirable.  

Also see USG policy 8.3.5 Evaluation of Personnel and USG ASAH sections 4.7 Post-Tenure Review and 4.8 Evaluation of Faculty. 

Five-Year Review Procedures 
The general procedures for a 5-year comprehensive review of academic administrators is discussed here, while the specific criteria and procedures for review of school chairs and deans are given in Sections 3.3.10.1 and 3.3.10.2. 

The 5-year comprehensive review should be completed by a committee, with membership as determined by the procedures in the faculty administrator’s School or unit. The committee should receive from the administrator: a summary of activities and accomplishments, a list of job duties, a self-evaluation, and the results of prior annual evaluations. The overall review should include a 360° evaluation that incorporates feedback from a variety of constituents such as the students, peers, and other groups as appropriate to the role. The administrator being reviewed has a chance to make comments on the committee’s report.   

The report, and any additional comments from the administrator, is presented to the supervisor. The supervisor will make their own written assessment of performance and share it with the administrator under review. Based on that assessment and results of the committee’s review, the supervisor will make a decision on reappointment and on any improvements that should be made. The supervisor will inform the administrator and the review committee in writing of the decision.   

The 5-year comprehensive review is allowed to take the place of the standard post tenure review for tenured administrators.