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
• 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 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 his or her prior institution, and brings a demonstrable 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. 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 his/her 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 Reviews
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 review 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 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
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 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 and fifth year review 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 and review the documentation that is submitted, 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 his/her own, with the candidate, and counsel the candidate appropriately.

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 instruction, creativity, and service. 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 his or her 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, creativity, and service. In appraising a candidate's qualifications for tenure, the weighting of the three (3) 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.
• Academic achievement, as appropriate to the mission.
• Outstanding service to the Institute, profession or community.
• Professional growth and development.

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7.  Noteworthy achievement in all four (4) of the above need not be demanded, but should be expected in at least two (2). 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 insuring 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 his or her 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 he or she would have been subject without the extension.

The terms and conditions of this policy apply equally to men and women.

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:

• Superior teaching.
• Outstanding professional service to the Institute, and/or the community.
• Outstanding research, scholarship, creative activity or academic achievement.
• Professional growth and development.

More details are provided in Section 3.3.7.  Noteworthy achievement in all four (4) of the above need not be demanded, but should be expected in at least two (2). 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.

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

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
• 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 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
• Clear evidence of effective teaching
• Clear evidence of creativity while at Georgia Tech
• 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 creativity
• Evidence that the candidate is making substantial contributions to Georgia Tech by service to the Institute, to the public, or to the profession
• 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 four (4) of these qualifications and should have some demonstrable accomplishments in the last two.

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 some 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.

Education Activities

• Supervision of independent study courses, honors theses, graduate theses and dissertations, field trips, internships, and practice.
• Supervision of Students who are working in instructional activities, such as lectures, laboratories, recitations, self-paced instruction, or tutoring.
• Specialized teaching for honors Students or for other types of special programs.

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 his/her entire career should be considered and special attention given to those that occurred at Georgia Tech.

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 Students
Service to Students includes such activities as: advising, career counseling, presentation of lectures on special topics, participation in panel or group discussions, directing field trips, serving as faculty moderator of a student activity, and engaging in appropriate extra-academic activities with Students.

Documentation should include a statement from the Unit Head relative to the academic load of the Faculty member, participation in pre-registration and registration duties, as well as comments on the quality of those activities stated above.

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 by the Center for Teaching and Learning under the auspices of the Provost, is administered in each School or College on a systematic basis during fall and spring semester each year. In addition, the survey system is available during summer semester.

Candidate’s Responsibility
The candidate has the responsibility to prepare and review the documentation that is submitted, 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, and service. These personal narratives shall be three (3) to five (5) pages with one-inch margins, standard single-spaced and 10 pt 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, 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. Theseletters 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.

Expanded Peer Review
A unit-wide committee may be appropriate in large units with a number of sub-disciplines to provide some consistency across units and to comment on the teaching and service contributions of the candidate.

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. All Unit Heads involved jointly shall provide recommendations. These recommendations will then 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. Vice-Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Development  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 Graduate Education and Faculty Development 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 his/her 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 his/her 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
Periodic Peer Review (PPR) is aimed at facilitating Faculty development and ensuring intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance by all Faculty throughout their professional careers. In both regards, the goal is to maximize the talents of tenured Faculty within the broad array needed for effective performance of the Institute and its Units. 

The Institute recognizes that the granting of tenure for Faculty is an important protection of free inquiry and open intellectual debate. This PPR policy defines a system of periodic peer evaluation of all tenured Faculty which is intended to enhance and protect the guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. It is recognized that PPR is most appropriately conducted by a committee of Faculty peers.

A Periodic Peer Review is both retrospective and prospective because it recognizes past contributions and provides the means for continuous intellectual and professional growth. It is recognized that, within the traditional mix of professional activities, different emphases may be appropriate at different stages in a Faculty member's career. As a Faculty development tool, PPR provides an opportunity to assist a tenured Faculty member in formulating a multi-year plan of professional growth and activity in teaching, research, and service based on his or her interests and the needs and mission of the Unit and the Institute. To assure professional competence, PPR provides an opportunity to assess the tenured Faculty member's effectiveness in teaching, research, and service over a multi-year period. Assessment of professional activities over a relatively long time span encourages Faculty members to undertake projects and initiatives that do not readily lend themselves to annual evaluation.

The outcome of a PPR may be a recommendation for a five (5) year review if the Faculty member’s performance is satisfactory or better; a three (3) year review if the Faculty member’s performance is less than satisfactory; or a referral of the matter to the appropriate Dean for further consideration.  A second consecutive recommendation for a three (3) year review indicates major and/or chronic deficiencies.

Evaluation Criteria

• The criteria used may be those ordinarily used by the Faculty member’s Unit, or alternative criteria may be applied to reflect the varying emphases/roles senior Faculty may play.
• The School Chair is responsible for formulating individualized alternative criteria, after consultation with the Faculty member; an understanding regarding such criteria must be reached and confirmed in writing prior to documentation submission.
• If there is no agreement on criteria, the Faculty member may request a hearing by a committee established by the Faculty of the Unit. The Committee's decision on criteria is final.

Submission of PPR Package by the Faculty member
The Faculty member shall submit a PPR package, that contains:

• A cover sheet
• A copy of the approved individualized evaluation criteria, if applicable
• A current curriculum vitae
• A statement from the Faculty member, of up to five (5) pages
  • If the Faculty member is undergoing a second or subsequent PPR, the statement must include information on how goals from the previous review have been met.
  • The Faculty member should state his or her goals for the next five (5) years.
• The Faculty member's teaching evaluations
  • For the Faculty member’s first PPR, all evaluations should be included
  • For subsequent reviews, only course evaluations from courses taught since the last evaluation should be included.
• Summaries of annual performance evaluations (to include rebuttals) for the years under consideration. The summary shall be prepared by the Chair and reviewed by the Faculty member.

Chair's Assessment Letter

• After receipt of the PPR package, the School Chair will prepare a summary and assessment based upon the agreed criteria.  The summary should be supported by the Faculty member’s annual evaluations and rebuttals, if any.  If it is not, the Faculty member should be given the opportunity to comment on the summary. The letter should also include a detailed assessment of the Faculty member's goals for the next five (5) years.  The School Chair should deliver these documents to the Unit PPR committee.

Unit Level PPR Committee

Composition

The Unit Faculty shall determine the composition of the committee, with the following limitations:

• The committee must have at least three (3) members.
• The committee shall be composed of tenured, Academic Faculty from the unit of the Faculty member's primary appointment.  If a candidate has a joint appointment with budget sharing, then
  • The majority of the committee members for such Faculty members shall be from the primary Unit; and
  • At least one (1) member of the committee must be from the non-primary Unit
• The Chair shall not be a member of the committee.  Whether to include administrative Faculty members other than the Chair is up to Unit Faculty.  This decision shall be reviewed every five (5) years
• A single committee may review all PPRs or, if approved by the unit Faculty, several committees may do so. 

The Faculty member to be reviewed may:

• Provide input on the composition of the committee for consideration by the Unit Faculty
• Select a member of the committee to serve as an "advocate" or choose to add another tenured Faculty member to serve as "advocate", with voice and vote.
• Remove one (1) person from the committee

Review Process
The committee shall:

• Examine the documentation provided by the Faculty member and the Unit Head
• Assess the Faculty member’s performance based upon agreed criteria.  The assessment should be written, and should contain the information specified below, based upon the committee’s recommendation

Five (5) year review recommendation following a First review or subsequent Five Year reviews: Faculty member is making appropriate progress

The committee's report should contain:

• Narrative text commending satisfactory or better performance
• Critique of substandard performance (if any)
• Recommendations for corrective actions (if any)
• Recommendation for five (5) year review
• Record of committee's vote
• The signatures of all members of the PPR committee
• Comments on Faculty development and resources appropriate for execution.  For Associate Professors, this should include activities to enhance prospects for successful promotion.

Three (3) Year review recommendation after an initial review or a five year review: Major or Chronic Deficiencies
The committee's report should contain:

• Narrative text containing critique of substandard performance
• Detailed recommendations for corrective actions (if any)
• Narrative text containing commendation for satisfactory or better performance
• Recommendation for three (3) year review
• Record of committee's vote
• The signatures of all members of the PPR committee
• Comments on Faculty development and resources appropriate for execution.  For Associate Professors, this section should include activities to enhance prospects for successful promotion.

Five (5) Year Review recommended after Three (3) Year Follow-up Review: No Major Deficiencies; Significant Improvement Made
The committee's report should contain:

• Narrative text explaining that no major or chronic deficiencies are present
• Comments on what improvement(s) have been made, if any
• Recommendation for five (5) year review
• Record of committee's vote
• The signatures of all members of the PPR committee

Three (3) Year Review Recommendation after a Three Year Follow-up Review: Deficiencies Still Present, but the Faculty Member is Making Progress
The committee's report should contain:

• Narrative text citing deficiencies still present

• Comments on any improvement made, as well as significant improvements not made
• Recommendations for corrective action
• Possible resources
• Recommendation for Three (3) Year Review and for Dean to consider referral to FSGC
• Record of committee's vote
• The signatures of all members of the PPR committee

Communication of Outcome of Five (5) and Three (3) Year Reviews:
The committee shall submit to the School Chair and Dean:

• PPR Committee report
• Supporting documentation
• Chair's assessment of Faculty member’s goals and performance

The Dean shall provide a copy of all documents to the Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Development; the Vice Provost’s Office, through Faculty Development, maintains all files of reviews.

The Dean (Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Faculty Development for Colleges without Schools) shall transmit a letter and all documentation to the Faculty member.

Faculty Development Plans
The Faculty member who receives a Three (3) Year Review is required to meet with the Unit Head and Dean to establish a development plan.

• Initial Three (3) Year Reviews: The Unit Head and Dean will arrange a meeting with the Faculty member to discuss the plan in a timely fashion. The Faculty member, Unit Head, and Dean will work together to develop a formal plan for Faculty development.  The plan shall contain:  
  • Specific goals or outcomes
  • An outline of activities to be undertaken
  • A timetable
  • Mutually agreed monitoring strategies
• Subsequent Three (3) Year Reviews:  The Faculty member, Unit Head, and Dean will meet to discuss progress and update the previous formal development plan.

Resources may be allocated to assist in Faculty development.  The plan shall be retained at the unit level and should be considered during the next review.

Decision of the Dean upon Committee Recommendation for a Second Consecutive Three (3) Year Review
If the Unit level committee recommends a Three (3) Year Follow-up Review to the Dean, the Dean has two (2) options:

• Refer the matter  to the  FSGC, or
• Schedule another Three (3) Year Review

If referred to the FSGC:

• FSGC shall review the matter (see Grievances: Process and Procedures)
• FSGC, after review, shall send a recommendation to the President
• The President shall make the final decision
• The President shall notify the Faculty member, in writing, of the decision

Appeals and Grievances
The Faculty member being reviewed may appeal the Unit level recommendation, or other grievances related to the PPR process, to the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee (See Section 3.1.9 Grievance: Process and Procedures). 

Purpose
The performance of each academic School Chair will be reviewed annually by the responsible Dean. In addition, a comprehensive formal review must be completed around the end of every fifth year of appointment. The purpose of such a comprehensive review is to evaluate the progress of the School under the Chair’s leadership, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies, and to review the professional contributions and performance of the Chair as a “leader” and an “administrator.”

Ultimately, the purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to determine whether the Chair should be reappointed for another term. A second five (5) year appointment has been typical whereas a third five (5) year appointment is unusual. Nevertheless the reappointment decision will be based on the best interests of the Institute, College, School and individual.

It is recognized that all administrators, including the unit 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.

Criteria and Procedures
A review committee is appointed by the Dean of the College as follows:

• The Committee will consist of no fewer than five (5) members.
• A majority of the Committee members shall be chosen from tenured, non-administrative Faculty members in the unit.
• The Committee Chair shall be chosen by the Dean in consultation with the School’s Faculty Advisory Committee.
• The Committee will normally be chaired by a senior Faculty member.
• The Committee Chair is normally from a different academic unit in the College.
• The School Chair has the opportunity to comment on the composition of the Committee.
   

Establishment of Criteria to be Used in Reviews
The review criteria are to be defined by the Dean and the candidate prior to initial appointment or the Dean and the Chair prior to reappointment. As part of the Dean’s annual review of the Chair, the criteria may be reaffirmed or modified in consultation with the Chair of the School. As part of the Dean’s charge to the review committee, the Dean will review the evaluation criteria established at the beginning of the Chair’s current term, as well as any changes made since that time.  Specific responsibilities of school chairs that fall within these general criteria and must be included in the review are posted on the Faculty Developments website.

General Criteria

• Demonstrating evidence of commitment to the highest standards of quality in teaching, scholarship/research, academic development with evidence of the School’s actual progress on all three (3).
• Providing effective management of internal affairs of the School.
• Recruiting/retaining the highest quality Faculty, Staff, and Students.
• Managing the School’s fiscal affairs.
• Developing/maintaining open communications with all constituencies.
• Facilitating goal setting by individuals, programs, and by the Unit as a whole.
• Identifying issues and resolving conflicts affecting the Unit.
• Developing internal and external resources.
• Implementing fair and equitable performance evaluations and salary adjustments.
• Establishing a working environment conducive to achieving individual and unit goals, as well as balancing and reconciling diverse interests with the unit.
• Building relationships with constituencies within and outside of Georgia Tech.
   

Review Process
The Dean may schedule the review for any time between four (4) and six (6) years after either the initial appointment of the Chair or the preceding formal review. The review may be timed to coincide with the mandatory Board of Regents’ five (5) year Program Review. Utmost confidentiality must be maintained during the review process. The Dean will provide the Committee with confidentiality guidelines at their first meeting.

Early in the process, the Chair should be asked to meet with the review committee to provide a self-assessment. The Committee should seek input from Unit’s Faculty, Staff, and Students, and other constituencies. The Committee should identify areas where the Chair should place added emphasis/attention if he/she continues to lead the unit over the next five (5) years.

Conclusion of the Review
The Committee provides the Dean with a confidential, written report of no more than five (5) pages. The report shall include:

• Assessment of the School’s progress under the Chair’s leadership.
• Evaluation of the Chair’s performance as a leader and administrator.
• Recommendations for improvement (if any).

The Chair being reviewed will have the opportunity to comment on the report. The Dean will evaluate the report and make a decision regarding the reappointment of the Chair. The Dean will communicate results of the review both orally and in writing to the Chair. The Dean will inform the Review Committee of the reappointment decision.

Purpose
The performance of each Dean of an Academic Unit will be reviewed annually by the Provost. In addition, a comprehensive formal review must be completed around the end of every fifth year of appointment. The purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to evaluate the progress of the units under the Dean’s leadership, to provide the opportunity for constructive input from Faculty and other constituencies, and to review the professional contributions and performance of the Dean as a leader and an administrator.

Ultimately, the purpose of such comprehensive reviews is to determine whether the Dean should be re-appointed for another term. A second five (5) year appointment has been typical whereas a third five (5) year appointment is unusual. Nevertheless the reappointment decision will be based on the best interests of the Institute, Unit, and individual.

It is recognized that all administrators, including Deans, 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.

Criteria and Procedures
A Review Committee shall be appointed by the Provost as follows:

• The Committee will consist of no fewer than five (5) members.
• The majority of the Committee members shall be chosen from tenured, non-administrative Faculty members in academic units supervised by the Dean.
• The Committee will normally be chaired by a senior Faculty member.
• The Committee Chair is normally from a different College/Unit.
• The Committee Chair is chosen by the Provost in consultation with the Chair of the Faculty Executive Board.
• The Dean has an opportunity to comment on the composition of the Committee.

Criteria Established to be Used in Reviews
The review criteria are to be defined by the Provost and the candidate prior to initial appointment, or the Provost and the Dean prior to reappointment. As part of the Provost’s annual review of the Dean, criteria will be reaffirmed or modified in consultation with the Dean. As part of the Provost’s charge to review committee, the Provost will review the original criteria as well as any changes made.

General Criteria

• Demonstrating evidence of commitment to the highest standards of quality in teaching, scholarship/research, academic development with evidence of College's actual progress on all three.
• Providing effective management of internal affairs of the College.
• Recruiting/retaining the highest quality administrators, Faculty, Staff, and Students.
• Managing the College's fiscal affairs.
• Developing/maintaining open communications with all constituencies.
• Facilitating goal setting by individuals, programs, Schools, and by the Unit as a whole.
• Identifying issues and resolving conflicts affecting the Unit.
• Developing internal and external resources.
• Implementing fair and equitable performance evaluations and salary adjustments.
• Establishing a working environment conducive to achieving individual and Unit goals, as well as balancing and reconciling diverse interests within the College.
• Building relationships with constituencies within and outside of Georgia Tech.

Review Process
The Provost may schedule the review for any time between four (4) and six (6) years after either the initial appointment or the preceding formal review. For Colleges without Schools, the review of the Dean may be timed to coincide with the Board of Regents' five (5) year Program Review. Utmost confidentiality must be maintained during the review process. The Provost will provide the Committee with confidentiality guidelines at their first meeting.

Early in the process, the Dean should be asked to meet with the review Committee to provide a self-assessment. The Committee should seek input from Chairs, Faculty, Staff, Students, and other constituencies. The Committee should identify areas where the Dean should place added emphasis/attention if he/she continues to lead the Unit over the next five (5) years.

Conclusion of the Review
The Committee shall provide the Provost with a confidential, written report of no more than five (5) pages. The report shall include:

• Assessment of the College's progress under the Dean's leadership.
• Evaluation of the Dean's performance as a "leader" and "administrator".
• Recommendation for improvement (if any).

The Dean being reviewed will have opportunity to comment on the report. The Provost will evaluate the report and make a decision regarding reappointment of the Dean. The Provost will then communicate the results of the review both orally and in writing to the Dean. The Provost will inform the Review Committee of the reappointment decision.