Joint meetings of the Faculty Executive Board and the Georgia Tech Staff Council may be held from time to time to provide the Institute with advice concerning matters of mutual interest and wide applicability to employees across the Institute. Such meetings will be arranged by mutual agreement between the Chairs of these bodies and with the concurrence of the President or the President’s designee.

Standing Committees

The Faculty and the Georgia Tech Staff Council may charter some Standing Committees jointly and establish appropriate procedures for the selection of members of these committees.  The Faculty Executive Board shall act on behalf of the Faculty for their part in establishing and coordinating the activities of such committees.  It is expected that such committees will cover topics of wide interest to both faculty and staff, such as benefits, employee welfare, and security. Recommendations from these committees may be heard in joint meetings of the Faculty Executive Board and Georgia Tech Staff Council or separately by mutual agreement of the chartering organizations.

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.

The following is a list of benefits, privileges, and recognitions that are associated with emeritus/ emerita/ emeritum/ emerit status:

• Certificate showing emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit award and rank.
• Inclusion in faculty/administrator listing on Institute emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit web pages and the catalog
  Buzz Card with emeritus/emerita/emeritum/emerit identification.
• Continued use of Institute email without interruption, contingent upon participation in the same cybersecurity trainings as active employees (should just be the faculty member’s same email address or alias - gpburdell@gatech.edu).
• Use of Institute software and technology resources, contingent upon participation in the same cybersecurity trainings as active employees.
• Full library access (the same as active faculty), including remote access to electronic resources.  N.B. A note will need to be sent to the following library personnel: Associate Dean for Content, Access and Services and the Dean of Libraries.
• Eligibility to serve on graduate thesis or doctoral dissertation committees (as per GT Catalog Policy on Advisement of Graduate Student Research and the Appointment of Thesis Advisory Committee), project committees, or as non-voting members of school, college, or Institute committees, as appropriate.
• Continued use of Institute office space as appropriate when available.
• Maintained on GT faculty email lists.
• Invitations and ability to participate in public ceremonies of the Institute.
• Invitations and ability to participate in certain departmental, college, and Institute events.
• Technical (OIT, etc.) support.
• Ability to serve as Co-PI on grants.
   

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.  

GTPE provides a way for working professionals to enroll in Georgia Tech courses that can be applied toward a master’s degree in Aerospace Engineering, Building Construction & Integrated Facility Management, Civil Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Medical Physics, and Operations Research, or can be used for professional development. The Georgia Tech distance learning program allows individuals to advance professionally and to stay on the cutting edge of their area of specialty. GTPE provides credit and non-credit courses at a distance via the Internet (video-on-demand), satellite delivery, teleconferencing, statewide networks, CD-ROM, and DVD, and microwave transmission.

GTPE services must be utilized for registering and tracking participation in all Georgia Tech master’s-level credit courses offered at a distance to working professionals either for academic credit or for professional development. GTPE services may also be utilized for other Georgia Tech courses offered at a distance. GTPE provides various levels of production support depending on the needs of the academic unit.

Distribution of Revenue
Tuition charged for Georgia Tech master’s-level courses offered at a distance is approved by the Georgia Board of Regents and is the same for all participants, regardless of residency status. A percentage, as determined by the Provost, of the tuition received for a distance learning course is transferred to the academic department of the faculty member offering the course. The unit may utilize these funds as desired, but is encouraged to allow the faculty member teaching the course to utilize the funds in recognition of the extra work required to serve the distance learning students. The remainder of the tuition remains with GTPE to cover the costs for delivering and supporting the course.

Revenue distribution for other multimedia courses offered at a distance that are not commercially licensed shall be determined in advance of the course offering and should be commensurate with the amount of work provided and the risk taken by each entity involved. Courses that are commercially licensed are subject to GIT Intellectual Property policies.

GTPE also assists faculty/administrators with planning, marketing, accounting, facilitating of professional education programs, and in meeting state requirements for tracking participation in professional education programs. Assistance is provided with both open enrollment and contract programs, offered on campus and at remote sites. Advance approval must be obtained for all continuing education programs using the GTPE Program Proposal Routing Sheet.

In light of the faculty’s priority commitment to high quality educational programs at GIT, faculty participation in the creation and delivery of short courses sponsored by organizations outside of GIT will only be permitted with the prior written consent of the faculty member's School Chair or Laboratory Director and the Dean of Professional Education.

Examples of non-Georgia Tech short course involvements for which approval might be given include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Teaching one-half day or less in a short course offered by another university.
• Teaching in a short course run by a professional society that is a part of a series with a long history.

GTPE’s services must be involved in all GIT non-credit courses, conferences, seminars, workshops, and institutes, both on and off campus, in which participants are charged a registration fee, to ensure that participation is properly recorded. The level of services provided is worked out with the units offering the course according to an established schedule of fees.

Georgia Institute of Technology is required by the University System of Georgia, and by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, to report all activities which qualify for Continuing Education Units (CEUs), e.g., short courses, contract courses, and conferences. All candidate activities are to be reported to GTPE.

Faculty members who are approved to organize a course or conference through an outside organization are required to submit copies of the participant roster, agenda, and brochure to GTPE to enable Georgia Tech to report CEUs to the Board of Regents whenever possible and appropriate.

Extra Compensation
When faculty, administrators, or graduate students participate in conducting Professional Education programs, they are eligible to receive extra compensation for time spent in instruction, laboratory supervision, design, marketing, coordination, evaluation, and other administrative effort at rates determined by the offering unit(s). Extra compensation may be paid to a Georgia Tech faculty member/administrator only if the official form is submitted through the GTPE and approved by the appropriate administrators. All requests for payment of extra compensation are to be submitted within one week after the end of the program to facilitate final accounting.

Credit for Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
Instructional faculty members are encouraged to cite and document participation in GTPE programs to support their representations of teaching, creativity, or service activities when being reviewed for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. If included under the category of teaching, instructor evaluations from program attendees are to be included in the documentation.

Georgia Tech holds the first amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the right to assemble peaceably as an essential cornerstone to the advancement of knowledge and the right of a free people. Georgia Tech remains firmly committed to affording every member of the Institute community the opportunity to engage in peaceful and orderly exercise of these rights. Such opportunities must be provided on an equal basis and support the principle that the Institute should remain neutral to the views of public expression. In order to achieve this objective, while at the same time ensuring that the Institute fulfills its educational mission, the Institute has the responsibility to maintain a peaceful, safe environment for its campus community as well as visitors to campus. This policy will help to ensure that individuals’ or groups’ rights are not abridged, while also supporting a means to maintain safety. Assuming responsibility for the use of Institute facilities includes ensuring that the Institute does not restrict the First Amendment rights of the public, students, staff, and faculty, including protecting the rights of speakers to be heard, the rights of the Institute community to hear speakers, and the reputation of the Institute as a center for free speech and scholarly inquiry. 

The law permits reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to allow for reasonable regulation of use of campus facilities to support Institutional missions for teaching, education, research, and other forms of learning. This policy is intended to make it possible to support the Institute’s goals by implementing balanced procedures. 

Access to the campus of Georgia Tech generally shall be limited to authorized visitors, invited guests, and persons in an official Institutional capacity attending an officially recognized campus-oriented function or activity. 

Students, faculty, staff, and Institute affiliates are supported in their right to assemble. They can publicly assemble on campus in any place where, at the time of the assembly, the persons assembling are permitted to be. This right to assemble is subject to the rules on use of Institute facilities.  

Any member of the teaching faculty may invite an off-campus speaker to address the registered students of their regularly scheduled class in the assigned classroom space. 

Any faculty member may invite an off-campus speaker to address students engaged in research under their direction. 

Any academic unit (e.g., department or school) or recognized faculty/staff organization may invite an off-campus speaker to address the membership of the unit or organization. 

Any time, other than regularly scheduled class time, and any location, other than assigned classroom or research space, for such a speaker must be scheduled in accordance with Institute policies. 

By acceptance of an invitation to speak, said speakers shall assume full responsibility for any violation of law committed by them while they are on campus. The sponsoring individual or organization shall not, in any invitations, advertisements or other correspondence, imply that the Institute or the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia approve or are in agreement with any of the positions espoused by the speaker.  The use of facilities of the Institute shall not necessarily imply that the Institute or the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia approves or are in agreement with any of the speaker’s statements. 

The Board of Regents (“BOR”) requires each University System of Georgia (“USG”) institution to develop policies and procedures for the administration of BOR Policy 6.3 Intellectual Properties.  

Georgia Institute of Technology (“GIT”) values the creativity and entrepreneurial attitude of members of the GIT community and encourages the protection and licensing of GIT Intellectual Property for commercialization.  GIT hereby establishes the following policy on intellectual property that may result from the activities of GIT employees in the course of their GIT duties or through the use of GIT resources. GIT, through the Office of Technology Licensing (“OTL”), also maintains and updates an Intellectual Property Administration Guidebook (“IP Guidebook”) in observance and furtherance of this policy and its interpretations and applications.  

In the event of conflict between this policy and BOR Policy 6.3, BOR Policy 6.3 shall govern. In the event of a conflict between the IP Guidebook and this policy, this policy shall govern. This policy shall supersede any previous GIT intellectual property policy. 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation (“GTRC”), an affiliated organization of GIT, is the assignee and owner of all intellectual property rights created at GIT.  

All GIT employees, including faculty, staff, affiliates, adjuncts, and students, who are obligated to execute an Intellectual Property Agreement, any updated Agreement or Addendum thereof (collectively as “IP Agreement”) as part of employment, are subject to this policy.  

Students shall be required to execute an IP Agreement only:   

1. When working on a research project funded by an entity other than GIT, the Georgia Tech Foundation, or the Board of Regents, 

2. When employed by GIT, 

3. In the case when the student anticipates or engages in more than incidental use of GIT equipment and/or resources that are not available to the general public, or 

4. When required by the Office of the Provost. Such requirement may be recommended by a faculty member who has students working in faculty-directed research. 

For the purpose of this policy, this assignment requirement does not apply to students who participate in entrepreneurship activities, such as senior design, CREATE-X, InVenture Prize, or use equipment obtained by Student Tech Fees. 

In addition to terms defined in BOR Policy 6.3, the following terms as used in this policy shall mean: 

“Commercialization” means the process of developing marketable intellectual properties and licensing (and/or optioning) the same to parties outside GIT who, in turn, will develop products or services based on them to sell or license to others.  

“Computer Software” (as defined by 48 CFR 2.101) means: (i) Computer programs that comprise a series of instructions, rules, routines, or statements, regardless of the media in which recorded, that allow or cause a computer to perform a specific operation or series of operations; and (ii) Recorded information comprising source code listings, design details, algorithms, processes, flow charts, formulas, and related material that would enable the computer program to be produced, created, or compiled. 

“Creator” means a member of the GIT faculty, staff, or student body who makes an invention, as defined under U.S. patent law, or who participates in the creation of a copyrightable work, under US copyright law, or both. One is a participant in creating a copyrighted work when one makes an original work of authorship (or part thereof) fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Being an editor or otherwise facilitating a creation does not ordinarily qualify one as a “Creator.” 

“Creator of Record” means any Creator identified on an approved intellectual property disclosure.  When more than one Creator of Record is identified, the contribution allocation shall be determined by the percentage listed in the disclosure.  

“Gross Income” refers to all revenue and/or equity received by GTRC from the transfer, commercialization, or other exploitation of GTRC-owned intellectual property.  

“Intellectual Property Disclosure” refers to a written description of intellectual property disclosed to GTRC, through OTL, and that includes the Creator(s) of Record, contribution percentage, covenants, representations, affirmation, and signatures.

GTRC owns all intellectual property rights resulting from the activities of GIT employees in the course of their GIT duties or through the use of GIT resources and of GIT students as outlined in Section 5.4.1, except in the circumstances described below: 

1. Sponsor-supported Efforts. Ownership of intellectual property rights is governed by the grant or contract terms agreed upon between the sponsor and GTRC and/or GTARC. 

2. Scholarly and Creative Works. Unless Section 5.4.3.A applies, Creators own copyrights to their scholarly and creative works, such as instructional materials, textbooks and associated supplementary material, books, journal articles, and associated Computer Software. GIT and GTRC retain a fully paid up, universe-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, re-use, distribute, reproduce, display, and make derivative works of all scholarly and creative works for the educational, research, and administrative purposes of GIT and/or GTRC. 

3. Individual Activities. Creators own all intellectual property rights arising from their individual activities, if (a) these activities are outside Creators’ GIT duties or assignments; and (b) there is no use, except in a purely incidental way of GIT resources in the creation of such intellectual property; or such resources are available without charge to the public. External consulting is considered an individual activity that is outside the Creator’s GIT duties or assignments.   

4. Special Cases. Ownership rights to intellectual property developed under any circumstances other than those listed in Section 5.4.3. 1-3 of this policy shall be determined on an individual basis and approved by the General Manager of GTRC (or their designee) or any other designated representative approved by the President of GIT. 

All GIT employees, including faculty, staff, affiliates, adjuncts, and students, as a condition of employment with GIT, shall execute the IP Agreement, assigning all rights, title, and interest, to the extent prescribed in this policy, in any intellectual property to GTRC.  

GTRC may waive its right to assert intellectual property claim under certain situations upon written request from Creator(s). 

GIT students own all intellectual property rights resulting from their academic and individual activities unless required to execute an IP Agreement as described in Section 5.4.1 of this policy. For Copyrighted Material and Computer Software that are (a) created by a student in furtherance of or in connection with the student’s studies or activities at GIT during their matriculation at GIT and (b) that are not subject to a sponsored project or other agreement giving third-party rights, the student hereby grants to GTRC and GIT a fully paid up, universe-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, re-use, distribute, reproduce, display, and make derivative works of all students-created Copyrighted Material and Computer Software for the educational, research, and administrative purposes of GIT and/or GTRC.

This section is to further clarify rights and responsibilities on ownership of Computer Software created during activities described as below: 

1. Software created in classes: Students and GIT staff/faculty own the software they create as part of participating in classes, including, but not limited to, instructional classes (such as classes that teach programming or use programming as part of their exercises), project-based classes (such as classes associated with senior design, capstone, and vertically integrated projects), and entrepreneurship classes and programs (such as classes associated with CREATE-X and InVenture Prize). GIT staff/faculty shall declare with OTL the ownership of such software that they intend to distribute, license, sell, or otherwise use for non-GIT related purposes. Such registration shall include a description of the circumstances of its creation including but not limited to the name(s) of creator(s), class information, and date of creation. Students are exempt from this requirement. 

2. Software created outside of classes: Computer Software created by students is owned by the student if (a) there is not a more than incidental use of GIT equipment and/or resources that are not available to the general public without charge; or (b) the software is not covered by the other sections of this policy.  

3. Software created as part of teaching: Students and GIT staff/faculty own the software they create as part of teaching and instruction. Examples of such software that GIT staff/faculty may create as part of class administration include, but are not limited to, practice exercises, interactive web sites, class forums, grading software, and plagiarism detection software.  For the purposes of education within the GIT community, GIT and GTRC retain a fully paid up, perpetual, universe-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, re-use, distribute, reproduce, display, make derivative works of said software. GIT staff/faculty shall register with OTL the ownership of such software that they intend to distribute, license, sell, or otherwise use outside the GIT community. Such registration shall include a description of the circumstances of its creation including but not limited to the name(s) of creator(s), class information, and date of creation. Students are exempt from this requirement. 

4. Software created as part of sponsored research: Computer Software created as part of sponsored research is governed by the grant or contract terms agreed upon between the sponsor and GTRC and/or GTARC. Computer Software sponsored by GIT and/or GTRC internally is owned by GTRC. GTRC-owned Computer Software may be distributed by the creator(s) to others for academic and research purposes only, provided that proper copyright notice and disclaimers are included. Any other release or distribution of said Computer Software must be coordinated with OTL. OTL will provide timely guidance for distribution licenses and will arrange for copyright registration when appropriate. Distribution for internal GIT and/or GTRC purposes need not be coordinated with OTL and is permissible with the written approval of any Creator of the software. 

5. Software created with support of gift funds: Students and GIT staff/faculty own the software they create as part of efforts supported solely by gift funds. For the purpose of this policy, gift funds include both general and designated gifts. Creators are encouraged to release such software in the public domain with appropriate disclaimers and copyright notices. GIT and GTRC retain a fully paid up, perpetual, universe-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, re-use, distribute, reproduce, display, make derivative works of said software. GIT staff/faculty shall declare to OTL such software that they intend to distribute, license, sell, or otherwise use outside the GIT community. Such registration shall include a description of the circumstances of its creation including but not limited to the name(s) of creator(s), funding information, and date of creation.  In the case where software is created with support of mixed funding sources, Creators must establish and agree to a mechanism to document the source of funds for each portion of the software created. When applicable, ownership of the creation is determined by the terms and conditions of the funding source.  

6. Software created during individual activities: Where Computer Software is created during faculty/staffs’ individual activities, the Creator(s) shall own the software, if (a) these activities are outside Creators’ GIT duties or assignments; and (b) there is no use, except in a purely incidental way, of GIT resources in the creation of such software; or such resources are available without charge to the public. For the purpose of this policy, external consulting is considered an individual activity that is outside the Creator’s GIT duties or assignments. 

1. Organization. The following groups are responsible for managing GIT intellectual property. 
   1. GTRC is the owner of all GIT created intellectual property rights and the contracting party to all intellectual property provisions and/or agreements, except for trademarks where the Georgia Tech Foundation is the contracting authority.  
   2. The Office of Technology Licensing (“OTL”) manages intellectual property disclosures and protections, licenses GIT created intellectual property, and administers income distributions. OTL should share with Creator(s) of Record a copy of the executed licensing agreement(s) in a timely manner, provided that confidentiality is preserved. 
   3. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (“IP Advisory Committee”) is appointed by the President or their designee after consultation with the Faculty Executive Board. The IP Advisory Committee will be constituted as follows: one representative shall be selected from the Office of Administration and Finance, one representative shall be selected from the Office of the General Counsel; one representative shall be selected from GTRC; and one or more faculty representative(s) shall be selected from each of the colleges and the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) so that there is an adequate representation of specialized areas such as but not limited to software, instructional materials, translational research, and inventions; and one or more representative shall be selected from the student body. The President or their designee shall appoint the Chair of the Committee to serve as needed. The role of the IP Advisory Committee is to: 
      1. Advise the President or their designee and General Manager of GTRC on policy matters relating to this policy, 
      2. Propose amendments considered necessary to this policy, 
      3. Advise on the settlement of internal disputes, and 
      4. Advise on deviations from this policy. 

2. Disclosure. Creators must promptly and fully disclose to OTL any intellectual property resulting from the activities of GIT employees in the course of their GIT duties or through the non-incidental use of GIT resources. Creators also have an ongoing obligation to update the disclosure including adding or deleting Creators or modifying contribution percentages. Details about the required disclosure can be found in the IP Guidebook. Failure to disclose may result in a breach of sponsored research agreement obligations, loss of potential royalties, etc. 

3. Evaluation Decisions. OTL may develop the intellectual property for commercialization, may release it to the Creator(s) if OTL decides not to continue managing a given intellectual property and such release is permitted by law, or OTL may take such other actions as are determined to be in the public interest. Details about decision making and notifications can be found in the IP Guidebook.  Within 60 calendar days from disclosure by the Creator(s), OTL will inform the Creator(s) as to whether they will file a provisional patent application. If OTL decides not to file a provisional patent application, refile a new provisional patent application, or does not inform the Creator(s) within 60 days, OTL shall provide an evaluation to the Creator(s) as to whether the disclosed intellectual property could be released back to Creator(s). If yes, OTL shall initiate the release process. Within 10 months of the filing of a provisional application, OTL will inform the Creator(s) as to whether they will convert it to a non-provisional filing. If OTL decides not to file a non-provisional application or does not inform the Creator(s) within 10 months, upon request, the intellectual property may be reverted to the Creators under the terms of any agreements that supported or are related to the work. In the case of an invention resulting from a government-sponsored project, where OTL cannot or chooses not to retain ownership, rights would be retained by the government unless explicitly requested by the Creator(s). In such cases, the Creator(s) may request and be granted rights by the sponsoring agency to an invention made under such award. 

4. Questions related to GTRC ownership. In the event there is a question as to whether GTRC has a valid intellectual property ownership claim arising from a situation not described in this policy, OTL shall provide the Creator with a written decision supported by a summary of rationale within 30 calendar days. 

5. Licensing to GIT Creators. OTL may, at its discretion and if consistent with the public interest, license intellectual property to the Creator(s) on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis. The Creator(s) may be required to assume the cost of statutory protection. Agreements with Creators will be subject to review and approval of conflict-of-interest issues in accordance with applicable GIT policies. 

6. Consulting Agreements. Consulting agreements are agreements between GIT employees and a private third party. GIT cannot provide advice to employees regarding private or non-GIT matters. However, GIT employees should carefully review such agreements to ensure the terms are not in conflict with their employment agreement with GIT or obligations to GIT and/or GTRC nor in conflict with any of the GIT’s policies, including but not limited to this policy. 

7. Administrative Guidelines and Procedures. OTL shall develop and maintain the IP Guidebook providing operational guidelines and procedures for the administration of GIT intellectual property.  

8. Appeal. Any decisions made by GTRC and/or OTL may be appealed to the GTRC Board of Trustees. The General Manager of GTRC shall facilitate the appeal process. The GIT IP Advisory Committee shall serve as an advisory body to the GTRC Board of Trustees in reviewing and deciding on the merits of any appeal. 

9. Maintenance Fees. OTL will inform Creator(s) 60 calendar days before the due date if they intend to abandon the maintenance for a patent.  Creator(s) may have an option to take over the patent by paying the future patent costs.  

10. Alternative Disposition of Rights. Unless the terms of any agreements that supported or governed the work prohibit and notwithstanding other provisions in this policy (including but not limited to the IP Agreement), a Creator (acting collectively when there are more than one) is free to place an invention or a creation in the public domain upon written notification to GTRC signed by all Creators of Record. GTRC will not assert intellectual property rights when Creator(s) have placed their inventions or creations in the public domain. 

To encourage further development of intellectual property and as authorized by BOR, OTL shall use the following income distribution mechanism.  

The first Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) of gross licensing income derived from the Commercialization of any intellectual property shall be paid to the Creator(s) of Record. Thereafter, the net income, computed on a cumulative basis, shall be distributed as follows: 
  

All licensing net income from royalties and similar income, i.e., Gross Income less all expenses attributable to that specific disclosure (e.g., patent costs, attorney costs, evaluation costs, marketing costs, reproduction, mailing, consumables, and unreimbursed development costs, etc.), shall be distributed annually by GTRC to the Creator(s) of Record and/or unit.  

Reinvestment funds are intended to seed additional research and development of new Intellectual Property. Distribution of a portion of royalties, and similar or related income, for reinvestment will be made in the form of a GTRC grant to the primary home unit of the principal Creator for use in funding additional research and development or other scholarly activities at the unit level. 
The portion of royalty and similar or related income that accrues to GTRC shall be used to partially offset the costs of technology transfer or dissemination not allocable to specific licensed intellectual property and to support the research and teaching infrastructure and programs of GIT. 

In the event that equity in a company is offered to and accepted by GTRC as part of consideration for a license to technology and/or to any other intellectual property, GTRC, through OTL, and the Creator(s) of Record shall agree in writing on how the Creator(s) of Record will receive equity shares and other related matters, provided that the Creator(s) of Record have made proper disclosures to and received approval from the Conflict of Interests review group.   

Subject to the company’s subscription or shareholders agreement provisions requiring that GTRC not receive shares with an intent to sell, upon any sale of the equity shares retained by GTRC, the net proceeds received therefrom, will be distributed to the unit, to the Creator(s) of Record, and to GTRC according to the mechanism described in this policy. 

Retention of Ownership 

Ownership of intellectual property rights will normally be retained by GTRC. This is to ensure that all licensable knowledge created or invented will be available for public use. Exclusive licensing agreements by GTRC will contain a due diligence provision to require the license to revert to GTRC within a reasonable period of time if the licensee does not make the intellectual property available to the public according to the terms of a fully executed agreement. 

For Copyrightable Materials (as defined in BOR Policy 6.3.2.4)  that are owned by GTRC, the Creator(s) is authorized to make modifications and to prepare derivative works, and to use and present said derivative works, whether or not the Creator(s) is still employed by GIT, subject to the GIT Conflict of Interest Policy. 

GIT has the right to require that the quality and freshness of Copyrighted Materials used in its programs be maintained. It will make every reasonable effort to involve faculty, staff, and student Creator(s) of copyrightable works in on-going quality assurance and improvement of the works they created.  

Members of the GIT community shall respect and observe the rights of other copyright owners. 

1. Trademark. Names and Trademarks associated with and belonging to GIT may not be used except by permission of the Office of Institute Communications, acting on behalf of the Georgia Tech Foundation. Members of the GIT community may identify themselves as such, in ways customary in scholarly work, but any such use shall seek to avoid inappropriate implications of sponsorship or endorsement by GIT, and where necessary, include specific disclaimers. 
2. Trade Secrets. OTL may include Trade Secrets (defined in BOR Policy 6.3.2.6.) provisions in patent license agreements. Because of the potential for conflict with the GIT’s policies of requiring the free and open publication of academic research, GIT will not generally enter into agreements protecting stand-alone Trade Secrets.  

Changes in Policy. This policy shall be reviewed every three years and changes may be made through GIT policy change process.  

State laws governing ethics and conflicts of interest are based on the premise that public employees are acting on behalf of government for the benefit of the public. As public employees of an institute serving the educational and public purposes of teaching, research, and professional service, there is an obligation to conduct research and official duties on behalf of the Institute in such a manner consistent with statutes and regulations. The avoidance of conflict of interest is vital to ensuring the integrity and objectivity in conducting and reporting research.

The purpose of this policy is:

• To set forth acceptable parameters relating to possible conflicts of interest which may arise from the outside professional activities of an Institute Employee;
• To define and establish a mechanism to reduce, eliminate, or manage a situation that may pose a real or potential Conflict of Interest;
• To ensure the integrity of research, education or business transactions of the Institute and to identify real or potential Conflicts of Interest;
• To ensure that sponsored research at the Institute is conducted in compliance with regulations promulgated by the sponsor thereof including but not limited to the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health as appropriate [Ref. NSF - Investigator Financial Disclosure Policy http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1996/iin117/iin117.txt and NIH Guide – Objectivity in Research http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-25/pdf/2011-21633.pdf]; and
• To articulate activities that would be prohibited.
   

This policy applies to all Institute Employees, including Emeritus faculty, visiting faculty and scientists, adjunct faculty, affiliates and Tech Temps. It applies to students and trainees if they are involved in the design, conduct or reporting of research at the Institute.

Penalties for non-compliance with this policy are outlined in Section 5.6.6.

Definitions as used in this policy, the term:

1. "Agency" means any agency, authority, department, board, bureau, commission, committee, office or instrumentality of the State of Georgia.
2. "Business" means any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual, trust or other legal entity.
3. “Conflict of Commitment” occurs when an Employee undertakes external commitments which burden or interfere with the Employee’s primary obligations to the Institute. Conflicts of Commitment may arise out of consulting arrangements or with an entrepreneurial interest when a faculty member is involved in a startup company.
4. "Conflict of Interest" means any situation in which
   1. It reasonably appears that a significant financial interest could affect the design, conduct, or reporting of activities funded or proposed for funding by a sponsor; or
   2. The personal interest of an Employee or his or her Family may prevent or appear to prevent the Employee from making an unbiased decision with respect to the Employee’s employment with the Institute
       
      Illustrative examples of such situations include, without limitation, the following situations:
   • The Employee, or a member of his or her Family, has a significant financial interest in a business which transacts business with the Institute.
   • The Employee, or a member of his or her Family, has a significant financial interest in an entity that competes or may compete with the Institute for sponsored activities.
5. “Conflict of Interest Review Committee” shall mean an advisory committee to the Executive Vice-President for Research that shall be composed of the Chief Legal Counsel, the Vice-President for Research, a representative for the student body, and a member of the Faculty appointed by the Faculty Executive Board. In absence of a standing Committee the Executive Vice-President for Research shall appoint an ad hoc committee as dictated by the circumstance.
6. “Conflict of Interest Management Office” (COI Office) shall mean the central office designated by the Institute to review all disclosures that present actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The COI Office works with the COI Review Committee and the Responsible Unit Official to ensure that any conflicts of interest are reduced, managed, or eliminated in conjunction with federal, state, and local regulations and Institute policy.
7. "Consulting" means any professional activity related to the person's field or discipline (e.g. consulting, speaking, scientific advisory boards, paid attendance at company meetings, expert witness services, etc.), where a fee-for-service or equivalent relationship with a third party exists. Consulting includes organizing or operating any educational program outside Georgia Institute of Technology.
8. "Employee” includes all Institute personnel who receive salary or wages from the Institute. Students and trainees are included if they receive pay from the Institute. Also included, by way of example without limitation, are Visiting Faculty and Scientists, Professors of the Practice, Adjunct Faculty, Emeritus Faculty (if they are engaged in part time work for pay), and Tech Temps.
9. "Family" means spouse or partner and dependent children [Georgia Official Code 45-10-20] and anyone who could reasonably be assumed to be family in the context of situations in which there may be the appearance of a Conflict of Interest stemming from an action of an Employee in combination with such persons.
10. "Full-time" means thirty (30) hours or more of work for the state per week for more than twenty-six (26) weeks per calendar year.
11. ”Individual Conflicts” means a Conflict of Interest that arises when an Employee has the opportunity to influence research, academic or Institute decisions in ways that could lead to personal financial gain. The financial gain may be derived from owning stock in a company that is sponsoring research, from ownership interest or employment in a company that may benefit as a licensee of an invention, or from the existence or expectation of entering into a consulting arrangement with a company sponsoring research.
12. “Institute/Institution” means the Georgia Institute of Technology.
13. “Institutional Conflicts” occur when the Institute, or one of its affiliated entities such as the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation, Georgia Tech Foundation or Georgia Advanced Technology Ventures, has a financial stake in the outcome of its research programs or licensed technology. The conflict may arise out of an equity interest in a start-up that licenses technology from the Institute or in the nature of royalties to be earned from licensing such technology.
14. ”Institutional Responsibilities/Institutional Obligations” means Investigator’s professional responsibilities on behalf of the Institution, including for example, activities such as research, research consultation, teaching, professional practice, Institutional committee memberships, and service on panels such as Institutional Review Boards or Data and Safety Monitoring Boards.
15. "Investigator" means the project director or principal investigator and any other person, regardless of title or position, who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of research, which may include, for example, collaborators or consultants.  If the research involves human subjects, it includes all personnel named in the protocol submitted to the Institutional Review Board. [from NIH: Financial Conflict of Interest http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/index.htm and from FDA: Guidance for Industry: Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM341008.pdf].
16. "Part-time" means any amount of work other than full-time work.
17. "Public Official" means any person elected to state office or any person appointed to a state office where, in the conduct of such office, the person so appointed has administrative and discretionary authority to receive and expend public funds and to perform certain functions concerning the public which are assigned to him or her by law.
18. “Responsible Representative of the Institution” means the person designated by the Institute to oversee the solicitation and review of financial reporting statements from any Investigators who will be participating in Research.  For purposes of this Policy, the Responsible Representative of the Institution is the Vice-President for Research or his/her designee(s).
19. "Responsible Unit Official" means the supervisor of the school, laboratory, or department of the person making a disclosure.  For such supervisors, the Responsible Unit Official will be the person he or she reports to at the next supervisory level. For any other cases, it will be an individual designated by the Executive Vice-President for Research.
20. "Significant Financial Interest," as defined in current Federal Regulations, means:
    1. A financial interest consisting of one or more of the following interests of the Investigator (and those of the Investigator's spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appears to be related to the Investigator’s institutional responsibilities:
       1. With regard to any publicly traded entity, a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure and the value of any equity interest in the entity as of the date of disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000. For purposes of this definition, remuneration includes salary and any payment for services not otherwise identified as salary (e.g., consulting fees, honoraria, paid authorship); equity interest includes any stock, stock option, or other ownership interest, as determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value;
       2. With regard to any non-publicly traded entity, a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000, or when the Investigator (or the Investigator's spouse and dependent children) holds any equity interest (e.g., stock, stock option, or other ownership interest); or
       3. Intellectual property rights and interests (e.g., patents, copyrights), upon receipt of income related to such rights and interests.
    2. The term significant financial interest does NOT include the following types of financial interests:
       1. Salary, royalties, or other remuneration paid by the Institution to the Investigator if the Investigator is currently employed or otherwise appointed by the Institution;
       2. Intellectual property rights assigned to the Institution and agreements to share in royalties related to such rights;
       3. Equity in and income from investment vehicles, such as mutual funds and retirement accounts, as long as the Investigator does not directly control the investment decisions made in these vehicles;
       4. Income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a federal, state, or local government agency, an institution of higher education as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher education;
       5. Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for a federal, state, or local government agency, or an Institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher education.
    3. Investigators who receive US Public Health Service funding (e.g. NIH) or a subcontract from another entity that receives funds from a US Public Health Service funding agency, also must disclose the occurrence of any reimbursed or Sponsored Travel, related to their institutional responsibilities; provided, however, that this disclosure requirement does not apply to travel that is reimbursed or sponsored by a federal, state, or local government agency, an Institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an Institution of higher education. The disclosure must include the purpose of the trip, the identity of the sponsor/organizer, the destination, and the duration. Please refer to https://procurement.gatech.edu/travel for answers to frequently asked questions.
21. “Sponsored travel” means travel expenses that are paid on behalf of the Investigator and not reimbursed to the Investigator so that the exact monetary value may not be readily available.
22. “Substantial Interest” is “the direct or indirect ownership of more than twenty-five (25) percent of the assets or stock of any business.”  [Official Code of Georgia 45-10-20].  An Employee, alone or in combination with Family, may not have an ownership interest of more than 25% of the assets or stock in any business which Transacts Business with the State of Georgia including the Institute. Therefore caps of 24.9% are placed on the percentage of ownership an Employee, alone or in combination with Family, may have in any business which Transacts Business with the Institute. Ownership interests below this cap may be managed as provided in this policy.
23. "Transact Business" or "Transact any Business" means to sell or lease any personal property, real property, or services on behalf of oneself or on behalf of any third party as an agent, broker, dealer, or representative and means to purchase surplus real or personal property on behalf of oneself or on behalf of any third party as an agent, broker, dealer, or representative.

Entrepreneurship
The mission of the Institute includes both assuring that research conducted at the Institute benefits the public and assisting the State of Georgia in creating or retaining industry, creating jobs, and promoting economic development. The Institute recognizes that Employee participation in bringing their inventions and other results of research conducted at the Institute into public use through commercialization plays an important role in this mission. Such participation may involve creation of a new company, in which an Employee or Employees have an ownership interest, to license and commercialize such technology. The policies and procedures for licensing technology are set forth in the Intellectual Property Policy (Faculty Handbook Section 5.4). New companies may or may not be housed in the Advanced Technology Development Center. Companies in which Employees have such an interest may Transact Business with the Institute only after such transaction(s) are/have been reviewed by the COI Office, Responsible Unit Official, and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee, as set forth below, and any conflicts of interest are managed, reduced, or eliminated as described in Section 5.6.4.

Policy
Based on State and federal law and regulations, the following two rules will be followed as a matter of Institute policy:

1. Activities which constitute a Conflict of Interest where there is Significant Financial Interest are prohibited unless a plan to reduce, eliminate or manage the Conflict of Interest has been expressly approved in accordance with the provisions of this policy; and
2. Activities which constitute a Conflict of Interest where there is a Substantial Interest are unlawful.

Board Memberships
As an Employee of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Full-time Employees of the Institute may serve as members of governing boards of private, nonprofit, educational, athletic, or research related foundations and associations which are organized for the purpose of supporting institutions of higher education in this state and which in furtherance of this purpose may Transact Business with such institutions or with the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. [Official Code of Georgia 45-10-23]

Disclosure to the State of Georgia
Except as provided in subsection (b) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 45-10-26, any Public Official or Employee whether for himself or herself, or on behalf of any Business, or any Business in which such Public Official or Employee or any member of his Family has a Substantial Interest who transacts business with the state or any agency thereof, shall disclose such transactions. Such disclosure shall be submitted prior to January 31 each year to the Secretary of State on such forms as he or she shall prescribe and shall include an itemized list of the previous year's transactions with the dollar amount of each transaction reported and totaled. Such disclosure statements shall be public records. [Official Code of Georgia 45-10-26]

Disclosure to the Institution
Every Employee of the Institute, including all who participate in outside professional activities and/or sponsored research must complete an annual disclosure using the online Conflict of Interest system. In answering the questions, if an Employee has indicated an actual or potential conflict, the system will notify the COI Office for review.  Employees must update their disclosures on an ongoing basis when circumstances change.

Disclosure to Sponsors
Any person involved in the design, conduct, or reporting of research (technical and financial) or educational activities proposed for funding by a sponsor must complete the Investigator Financial Interest In Research Report via the online Conflict of Interest System disclosing any potential or actual Significant or Substantial Financial interests of the Employee (including those of the Employee’s Family).  (Login to ServiceNow for this system.) Disclosures should include, but is not limited to:

1. Performance or business transactions related to the sponsored activity;
2. Equity interests in or fees from either the sponsor of the research or a subcontractor;
3. Intellectual property rights.

Each such Disclosure needs to be updated via the online system by the Employee during the life of any award, as new Significant or Substantial Financial Interests are recognized.

In completing a disclosure on the Conflict of Interest Online System, the Employee is certifying to the following:

"In submitting this form I affirm that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and I certify that I have read and understood the Conflict of Interest and Outside Professional Activity Policy as set forth in the Georgia Institute of Technology Faculty Handbook, that I have made all required disclosures, and that I will comply with any conditions or restrictions imposed by the Institute to manage, reduce or eliminate conflicts of interest."

In any proposal submitted to a potential sponsor, the Office of Sponsored Programs is responsible for certifying that the Institute has implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual Section 510 of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health Guide for Objectivity in Research, and other applicable sponsor regulations. In submitting the proposal, the Office of Sponsored Programs certifies that to the best of their knowledge all financial disclosures required by such conflict of interest policy have been made and that all identified conflicts of interest will have been satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the Institute’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in accordance with the Institute’s Conflict of Interest and Outside Professional Activity Policy.

Disclosure to the Institutional Review Board
Investigators submitting protocols to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the use of human subjects in research or other activities shall disclose any and all Significant Financial Interests that may appear to affect the design, conduct or reporting of such research. It is imperative that Investigators fully disclose to the IRB an ownership interest in any Business proposing to test any drug, device or other technology with human subjects or any potential financial interest in such technology that the Investigators, or the Investigators' Families might have. The IRB, in collaboration with the COI Office, shall conduct an independent review and may or may not impose restrictions, including denial of approval for the protocol, as it deems is in the best interest of the subjects and the Institute.

Disclosure to Students
Special care needs to be taken when dealing with students involved in research so that a potential or actual Conflict of Interest does not adversely affect their education, i.e. their ability to graduate or publish. Prior to retaining students on research projects that may involve a potential or actual Conflict of Interest, the Investigator and senior personnel will disclose to the student as well as to the COI Office and Responsible Unit Official, any interests in outside companies that may be perceived to benefit from the student’s research.  Should a conflict of interest exist, the COI Office, the Responsible Unit Official, the conflicted Investigator, and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee, will design a conflict management plan to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict prior to the student’s involvement in the project pursuant to the procedure provided for below.

Review of Financial Disclosures and Resolution of Conflicts of Interest
When a financial disclosure or report of a conflict of interest is made via the online Conflict of Interest module and forwarded to the COI Office, the COI Office reviews the disclosure per the COI Office Procedures.

Should an actual or apparent conflict of interest exist, the COI Office and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee will design a conflict management plan to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict prior to the Institute's expenditure of any such funds.

In developing a management plan, the COI Office and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee will work with the conflicted Employee and with the Responsible Unit Official and will consider the relationships between the Employee and the Institute to ensure adequate conditions or restrictions are in place to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict(s).

Such conditions may include, without limitation:

1. Public disclosure of significant financial interests;
2. Monitoring of research by independent reviewers;
3. Modification of the research plan;
4. Disqualification from participation in the portion of the sponsor funded research that would be affected by the Significant or
        Substantial Financial Interests;
5. Divestiture of Significant or Substantial Financial Interests; and/or
6. Severance of relationships that create actual or potential conflicts.

Conflict management plans and/or restrictions must be in writing and forwarded to the conflicted Employee and the Responsible Unit Official(s).  The COI Office and the Responsible Unit Official(s) will monitor compliance with the plan. A copy of the plan and relevant documentation will be maintained in the COI Office.

Upon recommendation by a Responsible Unit Official, the Conflict of Interest Review Committee may determine a) that imposing conditions or restrictions would be ineffective or b) that any potential negative impacts which may arise from a Significant or Substantial Financial Interest is outweighed by interests of scientific progress, technology transfer, or the public health and welfare.  In such cases, the Responsible Unit Official and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee may recommend to the Provost that the Institute allow research to go forward provided that any conflict management plan includes ongoing monthly review by the Responsible Unit Official and the Conflict of Interest Review Committee.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall permit the Institute to authorize an activity that is contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, federal regulations, or other restrictions imposed by regulation or contract by research sponsors. Furthermore, no activity involving human subjects may be authorized that has not been approved by the Institutional Review Board which in compliance with 45CFR46 may, in its sole discretion, deny such approval.

Should the Responsible Representative of the Institution find that the Institute is unable to satisfactorily manage a conflict of interest prior to the Institute's expenditure of any such funds, the Responsible Representative of the Institution shall immediately notify the COI Office and the Office of Sponsored Programs.

All determinations made or actions taken by the COI Office, and/or the Conflict of Interest Review Committee shall be in writing and together with all financial disclosures made hereunder, be maintained until at least three years after the later of the termination or completion of the award to which they relate, or the resolution of any government action involving those records.  If the Investigator is engaged in any research or other sponsored activity supported by the Department of Health and Human Services including but not limited to the National Institutes of Health, the Responsible Representative of the Institution shall forward this information to the sponsor in compliance with regulation.

Written management plans must be reviewed annually or upon a change in circumstances affecting the plan and appropriate disclosures should continue during the ongoing management of any conflict.

Conflict of Interest Training Requirements
Conflict of interest training is required for all Investigators before engaging in funded research and every four years thereafter.

Principles and General Standards
The Institute recognizes that consulting is a benefit to the institution and the Faculty. By gaining experience working closely with companies Faculty are aware of new technical directions and innovations, therefore the Institute encourages and permits its Faculty to consult. The practice of consulting calls for the Faculty to enter the non-academic world as a professional, with special disciplinary talents and knowledge. The Institute approves of such practices and set forth below are the principles and general standards for such practices.

Consulting can provide an important means of continuing education of the Faculty and can provide them with a currency and experience in aspects of their professional field outside the context of the Institute itself. Though such attributes of consulting may make faculty better scholars and teachers, the employer/employee nature of the consulting process has in it the potential for diversion of Faculty, Staff, and student employees from their primary activities and responsibilities.

Consulting is encouraged, provided the faculty member's primary obligation to the Institute is met. The responsibility for adhering to the limit on consulting days, and other aspects of the Institute's consulting policy, lies first with the individual faculty member. Faculty members have an obligation to report, fully and currently, the level of their consulting activities. Faculty members should resolve any questions or ambiguities with the appropriate Institute official before the fact, so that the Institute community is not injured by their actions. The Institute has the right, and indeed, the obligation, to protect itself from losses due to excess consulting.

Conflict of Commitment
The purpose of the policy on consulting and related activities is to state with both clarity and generality the limits on the time that an Institute Faculty member may spend in consulting. The limits set forth below are intended to strike a balance between consulting and regular duties within the Institute and serve to safeguard the interest of both parties. In cases of ambiguity, the primary guide should be the intention to promote the interests of the Institute as a place of education, learning, and research. It is the Faculty’s obligation to obtain prior consent from the appropriate Institute officer.

Prior Approval
The Institute encourages and assists faculty members in the practice of their profession. The Institution particularly encourages Faculty to consult, providing guidelines for this type of activity. It must be recognized, however, that professional consulting activities and involvement in business ventures can result in an apparent or actual Conflict of Interest. This policy provides several principles which should be followed to avoid conflicts.

It is not possible to anticipate all types of potential outside involvements. It is, therefore, always a faculty member's obligation to obtain prior written consent from his/her School Chair or Laboratory Director, Dean, or Director of GTRI, and the appropriate Institute officer before undertaking any activities. Approval must be obtained by completing and obtaining authorization via the Conflict of Interest Online System. If the faculty member’s consulting activities are related to his/her Institutional Obligations, and if the faculty member has either a Significant Financial Interest or a Substantial Interest in the outside entity with which he/she consults, the consulting activity must also be reviewed and approved by the COI Office prior to the initiation of services.

Distance Learning and Continuing Education
In the case of a faculty member organizing or generating any continuing educational program not affiliated, sponsored, or endorsed in any way by the Institute, the faculty member must obtain permission from the Dean of Professional Education via the Conflict of Interest Online System.

Use of Georgia Institute of Technology Facilities
In competing for consulting, Employees are not to take advantage of their access to Institute facilities. State law precludes Institute Employees from using State facilities or property for personal gain or benefit. The facilities and services of the Institute may not be used in connection with compensated outside work, except in a purely incidental way. This is not envisioned to exclude contracts with the Institute for the use of facilities or services such as the Computer Center or the Library or other facilities for which cost centers have been established.

Payment for Consulting
Members of the faculty may, for tax liability reasons, undertake consulting assignments through a personal corporation. This is not considered a conflict of interest in and of itself. However, see the "Prohibited Activities" subsection.

Consulting Agreements
Consulting agreements are personal agreements between Employees and a private company. The Institute cannot provide advice to Employees regarding private matters, however Employees should carefully review such agreements to ensure the terms are not in conflict with their employment agreement with the Institute or GTRC nor in conflict with any of the Institute’s policies, including but not limited to this Conflict of Interest and Outside Professional Activity Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy. Most companies require a consultant to sign a consulting agreement. Any Institute Employee who is asked to sign such an agreement should consult with his or her personal attorney for review and advice. Any consultant agreement, at a minimum, should state that the consultant is an Employee of the Institute and, as such, has commitments, responsibilities and obligations (contractual or otherwise) that must be fulfilled and may not be negatively impacted by a consulting agreement terms/conditions or actual consulting.

To avoid conflict with Institute-assigned duties, the following language is recommended as part of an Employee’s consulting agreement:

"This agreement is made subject to the understanding that Consultant is an Employee of the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT), that he/she must fulfill certain obligations including teaching, directing laboratory operations and conducting research; and that as a result of his/her employment by GIT, GIT has certain rights to intellectual property developed by him/her and any rights conveyed hereunder shall be subject to those rights. Under no circumstances are any rights to GIT or Georgia Tech Research Corporation intellectual property conveyed hereunder. All consulting activity hereunder shall be on a non-interfering basis with normal GIT activities. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall directly or impliedly affect the obligations listed above."

Activities Not Considered "Consulting"

1. Publication
   Scholarly communications in the form of books, movies, television productions, art works, etc. though frequently earning financial profit for a faculty member and for another party (e.g., publisher), are not viewed as consultation.
2. Professional Service
   Service on national commissions, advisory bodies for governmental agencies and boards, granting agency peer review panels, visiting committees or advisory groups to other universities, and on analogous bodies is not considered to be Consulting. The fundamental distinction between these activities and consulting is that they are public or Institute service. Although participants may receive an honorarium or equivalent, these professional service activities are not undertaken for personal financial gain.
3. "Moonlighting"
   Employee may pursue a variety of endeavors for financial profit that are not directly related to the person’s field or discipline. These efforts are part of the faculty member's private life and do not come under Institute regulation for this consulting policy. Such endeavors may be pursued only after the primary commitment to the Institute has been fulfilled and upon prior approval from a Responsible Unit Official of the Institute.

The Number of Permissible Consulting Days
The maximum number of consulting days permitted for a member of the Faculty without hourly time keeping on a twelve (12) month or nine (9) month appointment is one (1) day per week. Institute holidays are included in each thirty-nine (39) week academic year from which the thirty-nine (39) day consultation limit is derived. A limited amount of "averaging" of consulting time is permissible if, on occasion, a Faculty member plans to consult for more than one day per week but no more than thirty-nine days for an academic year. Thirty-nine (39) days of consulting per academic year, or fifty-two (52) days for a calendar year of active duty, is intended to be a liberal allocation, yet one that is fair to the Institute. Members of the Faculty whose time and effort is accounted for through hourly timekeeping may engage in consulting only outside their normal working hours or while on leave from the Institute.

1. Consulting During Periods of Part-Time Institute Employment
   The thirty-nine (39) day limit should be prorated for those members of the Faculty holding part-time appointments, using the following formula: [39 X F ], where F is the fraction of full-time duty, thirty-nine (39) represents the average number of academic weeks per year. Thus, a faculty member holding a seventy-five (75%) appointment is permitted up to twenty-nine (29) days of consulting per academic year for the 75% time commitment to the Institute.
2. Consulting During the Summer Term or During Periods of Leave Without Salary
   Faculty members on nine-month appointments with no salary supplement for the Summer Term (or other off-duty period) are not subject to the one day per week limit during that semester. Nor does the limit apply to faculty members on leave without salary. If the faculty member receives a salary for full-time service during the Summer Term, the regular one day per week (or thirteen-days for Summer Term) consulting limit shall apply.
3. Consulting While on Study Leave
   The purpose of study leave is to permit faculty members to take time off from normal Institute duties to advance their scholarly interests so that they may return to their posts with renewed vigor, perspective, and insight. A Faculty member on study leave receiving full-time Institute salary may consult up to the regular one day per week during the period of sabbatical.

Consulting Services for Other State Offices
As a general rule Employees of the Institute may not receive compensation for services performed for other state offices. [Official Code of Georgia 45-10-20]

Employees of one State agency may teach or work as consultants for another state agency provided the work falls within one of the following classifications and provided the conditions stated below are met.

Employees of one state agency may teach or work as consultants for another state agency if the transaction involves part-time employment by the state agency seeking consulting services of a chaplain, fireman, any person holding a doctorate or master's degree from an accredited college or university, a licensed physician, dentist, psychologist, registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse, or veterinarian.

The chief executive officer of the department or agency desiring to obtain the services of a person falling within the class of exceptions shall certify in writing the need for the services and shall set forth why the best interest of the state will be served by obtaining the part-time services of such a person in lieu of obtaining such services from a person not presently employed by the State.

The chief executive officer of the department or agency employing the person in the class of exceptions shall certify in writing that the person whose services are desired is available to perform such services, that the performances of such services will not detract nor have a detrimental effect on the performance of the person's employment, and, where appropriate, that the part-time employment of this person will be in the best interest of the State.

The two departments or agencies involved will then agree on the procedures under which the Employee shall perform the additional services. The agreement shall specify the means of employment, whether as a part-time employee or as a consultant, the compensation, and other pertinent details and conditions of the employment relationship. The agreement may be terminated at any time by either of the parties to the agreement.

Any Employee who violates this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

There are also sanctions under State law [Official Code of Georgia Section 45-10-28] as described in the following paragraphs.

Any appointed public official or Employee who violates Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 45-10-23 ("Full-time employees prohibited from transacting business with own state agency; exception to prohibition for Board of Regents employees"), Section 45-10-24 ("Part-time public officials with state-wide powers prohibited from transacting business with any state agency; part-time employees prohibited from transacting business with own state agency; exceptions to prohibitions"), or Section 45-10-26 ("Public officials and employees to file yearly disclosure statements concerning business transactions with state; statements to be public records") shall be subject to:

• Removal from office or employment;
• A civil fine not to exceed $10,000.00; and
• Restitution to the state of any pecuniary benefit received as a result of such violation.

Any business which violates Code Section 45-10-23, 45-10-24, or 45-10-26 shall be subject to:

• A civil fine not to exceed $10,000.00; and
• Restitution to the state of any pecuniary benefit received as a result of such violation.

Institutional Conflicts occur when the Institute has a financial stake in the outcome of its research programs or licensed technology. The Conflict may arise out of an equity interest in a start-up that licenses technology from the Institute or in the nature of royalties to be earned from licensing such technology. For example, the Institute may benefit from Georgia Tech Research Corporation’s equity in licensees, as equity is often taken in lieu of royalties or other license fees, this may create Institutional Conflicts for several reasons:

1. Owners of equity may cash out prior to product going to market, creating a situation under which the Georgia Tech Research Corporation may have an enhanced position relative to other shareholders;
2. The equity interest could have substantial value if the technology is successfully commercialized, creating a more apparent
        conflict.

Georgia Tech Research Corporation should be permitted to take stock in Licensee Companies that do not have the financial resources to make full license payments but, as with Employees, Georgia Tech Research Corporation must avoid the appearance of Conflicts of Interest in research programs, education, or business transactions. Therefore equity should not be held in significant amounts to confer management power in companies, and ownership interests in companies should be disclosed.

Review and approval may be provided by the Conflict of Interest Review Committee.

General Policy
Georgia Tech expects all personnel to conduct themselves in a professional manner that will maintain the high standards and integrity of the Institute.

Scope
This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at Georgia Tech engaged in research or other scholarly activity regardless of the source of funding for the activity including but not limited to funding or proposed funding from federal sources (see References 1 and 2). This policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators with or at Georgia Tech. The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible misconduct in science is received by an institutional official. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interests of Georgia Tech and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). Any change from normal procedures also must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Provost of Georgia Tech.

This policy and the procedural requirements involved in handling allegations of scientific or other scholarly misconduct are intended to be sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research and other scholarly activities, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

This policy does not replace or supersede the Academic Honor Code and Student Code of Conduct found in the Georgia Institute of Technology General Catalogue (see Reference 3) for students subject to that policy, except when the alleged scientific or other scholarly misconduct occurs in sponsor supported activities.

Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible Scientific or Other Scholarly

Misconduct made to an institutional official.

Complainant means a person who makes an allegation of Scientific or Other Scholarly Misconduct.

Conflict of interest means, for purposes of the administration of this policy, the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships (see Reference 4).

Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that Scientific or Other Scholarly Misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

Inquiry means gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of Scientific or Other Scholarly Misconduct warrants an investigation.

Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.

ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS).  In the event the sponsor is the PHS, ORI will be notified as required by Section 50.104(a)(1-7) of 42CFR Part 50, Subpart A.

PHS means the U.S. Public Health Service, an operating component of DHHS.

PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled "Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science."

PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications for such funding.

Research record means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of scientific misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of Scientific or Other Scholarly Misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or an employee because the individual has in good faith made an allegation of scientific misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

Scientific or other scholarly misconduct or misconduct in science means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

Sponsor means any agency of the U.S. Federal government, state government, private foundation, corporation, or other entity external to Georgia Tech that provides funds or other support to support a research project, research program, or other scholarly activity.  In the event the sponsor is the PHS, ORI will be notified (as defined above).

Sponsor support means any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, fellowship award, or any proposal or application for such funding.

Provost
The Provost in consultation with the Vice President for Legal Affairs and Risk Management (VP-LA&RM) will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document.

The Provost will appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation.

The VP-LA&RM on behalf of the Provost will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The VP-LA&RM will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. The VP-LA&RM is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.

The Provost will report to any sponsor as required by law, regulation, or contractual agreement and keep the sponsor apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the sponsor needs to know to ensure appropriate use of sponsor funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

Complainant
The complainant will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the Provost has determined that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the complainant for comment. The complainant is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

Respondent
The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel. The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of scientific or other scholarly misconduct, he or she has the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation such as verbal notification or written documentation that no misconduct was found (see Reference 5).

President
The President will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or the complainant on the draft report. The President will consult with the Provost or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investigation, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions as provided in Georgia Tech policies and the policies of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.

Responsibility to Report Misconduct
All employees or individuals associated with Georgia Tech shall report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in science to the Provost or Executive Vice-President for Research. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of scientific or other scholarly misconduct, he or she may call the VP-LA&RM to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Scientific or Other Scholarly Misconduct, the Provost will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem. Compliance concerns in the Georgia Tech Research Institute may also be reported via their hotline. At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the Provost and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.

Protecting the Complainant
The Provost will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto, and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The Provost will ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of their employment or other status at the institution and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action. Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Provost.

Also the institution will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the maximum extent permitted by Georgia law. For example, if the Complainant requests anonymity, the institution will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and Georgia law. The Complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the complainant's testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. Georgia Tech will make efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.

Protecting the Respondent
Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation.

Institute employees accused of scientific or other scholarly misconduct may consult with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice.

Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
All Georgia Tech employees will cooperate with the Committee of Inquiry, committee of Investigation and VP-LA&RM and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. All employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the committees or VP-LA&RM or other institutional officials on misconduct allegations.

Decision to Conduct an Inquiry
Upon receiving an allegation of scientific or other scholarly misconduct, the Provost in consultation with the VP-LA&RM will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether sponsor support is involved, and whether the allegation falls under the definition of scientific or other scholarly misconduct found in Section 5.7.2 of this policy.

Responsibility to Report Misconduct
Following the preliminary assessment, if the Provost determines that the allegation provides sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, involves PHS support, and falls under the definition of scientific or other scholarly misconduct, he or she will immediately initiate the inquiry process. In initiating the inquiry, the Provost should identify clearly the original allegation and any related issues that should be evaluated. The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific or other scholarly misconduct to warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry must be set forth in an inquiry report.

Sequestration of the Research and Other Records
After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of scientific or other scholarly misconduct, the Provost must ensure that all original research and other records and materials relevant to the allegation are immediately secured (see Section 5.7.13, Reference 6).

Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
The Provost, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within five (5) business days of the initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry committee should consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, and who are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry. These individuals may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution.

The Provost will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership upon its appointment. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert based on bias or conflict of interest within five (5) business days, the Provost will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.

Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
The Provost will prepare a charge for the inquiry committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment and states that the purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific or other scholarly misconduct to warrant an investigation as required by this policy. The purpose is not to determine whether scientific or other scholarly misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.

At the committee's first meeting, the Provost will review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions raised by the committee. The VP-LA&RM will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

Inquiry Process
The inquiry committee will normally interview the complainant, respondent, and key witnesses as well as examining relevant research records and materials.  Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the Provost and institutional counsel, the committee members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific or other scholarly misconduct to recommend further investigation.  The scope of the inquiry does not include deciding whether misconduct occurred or conducting exhaustive interviews and analyses.

Elements of the Inquiry Report
A written inquiry report must be prepared that states the name and title of the committee members and experts, if any; the allegations; sponsor support; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of the research records reviewed; summaries of any interviews; a description of the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is warranted or not; and the committee's determination as to whether an investigation is recommended and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended. The VP-LA&RM will review the draft report.

Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Complainant
The Provost will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation.

Confidentiality
To the extent permitted by Georgia law, the Provost may establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.

Receipt of Comments
Within ten (10) business days of their receipt of the draft report, the complainant and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the inquiry committee. Any comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate.

Decision by President
The Provost will transmit the final report and any comments to the President, who will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible scientific or other scholarly misconduct to justify conducting an investigation.  The inquiry is completed when the President makes this determination, which will be made within five (5) business days of receipt of the final report of the inquiry committee. Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and recorded in the inquiry file.

Notification
The Provost will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing of the President's decision of whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their obligation to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The Provost will also notify all appropriate institutional officials of the President's decision.

Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report
The inquiry committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the Provost no more than fifteen (15) business days following its first meeting, unless the Provost approves an extension for good cause. If the Provost approves an extension such that completion of the inquiry including the report will require more than sixty (60) calendar days, the reason for the extension will be entered into the records of the case and the report. The respondent will be notified of any extension.

Purpose of the Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly important where the alleged misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or public health practice. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

Sequestration of the Research Records
The Provost will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research or other records that were identified during an inquiry and not previously sequestered. This sequestration should occur before or at the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The need for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution's decision to investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The Provost, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the committee chair within ten (10) business days of notifying the respondent that an investigation will take place. The investigation committee should consist of at least three individuals who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the investigation. These individuals may be scientists, administrators, subject matter experts, lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside the institution.  Individuals appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry committee.

Upon selection, the Provost will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership. If the respondent submits a written objection within ten (10) business days to any appointed member of the investigation committee or expert, the Provost will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute.

Charge to the Committee
The Provost will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, define scientific and other scholarly misconduct, and identify the name of the respondent. The charge will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, complainant, and key witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, scientific or other scholarly misconduct occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.

During the investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the Provost, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional respondents.

The First Meeting
The Provost, with the assistance of the VP-LA&RM, will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions and, where sponsor support is involved, the applicable sponsor regulation.

Investigation Process
The investigation committee will be appointed and the process initiated within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of the inquiry, if findings from that inquiry provide a sufficient basis for conducting an investigation.

The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls.  Whenever possible, the committee should interview the complainant(s), the respondents(s), and other individuals who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations. All other interviews should be transcribed, or tape recorded. Summaries of the tape recordings or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared, provided to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.

Elements of the Investigation Report
The final report must describe the policies under which the investigation was conducted, describe the procedures used, describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct as well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the institution.

Comments on the Draft Report

Respondent
The Provost will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed ten (10) business days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should take into account the respondent's comments in addition to all the other evidence.

Complainant
The Provost will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant's role and opinions in the investigation. The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant's comments, which must be received by the committee within ten (10) business days.

Vice-President for Legal Affairs and Risk Management (VP-LA&RM)
The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the VP-LA&RM for a review. Comments should be incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Confidentiality
In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the Provost will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the Provost may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement, come to his or her office, or come to the VP-LA&RM’s office to review the report.

Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report
After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the investigation committee should transmit the final report with attachments, including the respondent's and complainant's comments, to the President, through the Provost.

Institutional Review and Decision
The President will review the final report and recommendations of the Investigation Committee. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the President will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. The President will make the final decision regarding any institutional actions or the imposition of any sanctions. There is no further appeal within Georgia Tech of any sanctions imposed as a result of a finding of scientific or other scholarly misconduct.

If the President’s determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the President will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee in a letter to the Provost which shall become part of the investigation file.  This shall also be included in Georgia Tech’s letter transmitting the report to appropriate sponsor including ORI if PHS funding or a proposal for such funding is involved. The President's explanation should be consistent with the definition of scientific or other scholarly misconduct (Section 5.7.2 of this policy) and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The President may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The President's determination, together with the investigation committee's report, constitutes the final investigation report for purposes of review as may be required by law or sponsor regulations.

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Provost will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. In addition, the President will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Provost is responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements to notify sponsors.

Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report
An investigation should ordinarily be completed within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days of its initiation, with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the investigation committee. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available to the subject of the investigation for comment, submitting the report to the President for approval, and submitting the report to the sponsor if required.

In the event that an allegation of scientific or other scholarly misconduct involves grants, contracts or cooperative agreements or proposals or applications for funding submitted to a Federal or other sponsor, the Provost’s decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to that sponsor if required by state or Federal laws or the sponsor’s regulations or by contractual agreement (see Section 5.7.13, Reference 7). At a minimum, notification, when required, should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the definition of scientific and other scholarly misconduct, and the applications or grant number(s) involved.  In accordance with the applicable regulations, Georgia Tech may also be required to notify the sponsor of the final outcome of the investigation and provide a copy of the investigation report.  Any significant variations from the provisions of the institutional policies and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to a sponsor.

If Georgia Tech plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the applicable regulations, the Provost will submit a report of the planned termination to the sponsor, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination as required by those regulations.

If Georgia Tech determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in one-hundred twenty (120) days, Georgia Tech may be required to submit to the sponsor a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If such a request is required in the event that the scientific or other scholarly misconduct occurred in a activity supported by PHS, the Provost will submit it and, if the request is granted, the Provost will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI.

When an admission of scientific or other scholarly misconduct is made, the individual making the admission will normally be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct (see Reference 8).

The Provost will notify sponsors or other appropriate Federal, state or local officials or Georgia Tech administrative officials at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:

• There is an immediate health hazard involved;
• There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
• There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
• It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
• The allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical trial; or
• There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation (see Section 5.7.13, Reference 9).

Georgia Tech will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.  If the President determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consultation with the Provost. The actions may include: withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where scientific or other scholarly misconduct was found; removal of the responsible person from the particular project; letter of reprimand; special monitoring of future work; probation; suspension; salary reduction; or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment; restitution of funds as appropriate; or failure or reduction of a grade in a course.

Termination of Institutional Employment, Resignation, or Withdrawal from the Institution Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
The termination of the respondent's institutional employment or enrollment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible scientific or other scholarly misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.  If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee's review of all the evidence.

Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation
If Georgia Tech finds no misconduct, after completing any required consultation with a sponsor and after consulting with the respondent, the Provost will undertake reasonable efforts to restore the respondent's reputation.

Depending on the particular circumstances, the Provost should consider notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the allegation of scientific or other scholarly misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging all reference to the scientific or other scholarly misconduct allegation from the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation must first be approved by the President.

Protection of the Complainant and Others
Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that scientific or other scholarly misconduct occurred, the Provost will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of scientific or other scholarly misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the President will determine, after consulting with the complainant, what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the complainant. The Provost is responsible for implementing any steps the President approves.  The Provost will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant.

Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the President will determine whether the complainant's allegations of scientific or other scholarly misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the President will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the complainant.

Interim Administrative Actions
Institutional officials will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the VP-LA&RM will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the Provost or committees. The Office of Legal Affairs will keep the file for three years after completion of the case to permit later assessment of the case. As required by law or regulation, sponsor personnel, including ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel in cases involving PHS support, will be given access to the records upon request.

1. The PHS regulation at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A applies to any research, research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS.
2. The DOD Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS) lay out minimum requirements of a system of management controls to promote integrity and honesty in the contractor’s business conduct. These are found at SUBPART 203.70--CONTRACTOR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.
3. http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/
4. The Georgia Institute of Technology Policy on Conflict of Interest, Consulting, and Disclosure may be found in Section 5.6 of the Faculty Handbook.
5. See Section 5.7.11.
6. In the event PHS funding or applications for PHS funding are involved, the Provost and VP-LA&RM may consult with ORI for advice and assistance regarding the sequestration of research records.
7. In the event the alleged scientific or other scholarly misconduct involves PHS funding or proposals or applications submitted for PHS funding, Georgia Tech’s decision to initiate or terminate an investigation must be reported in writing to the Director, ORI, on or before the date the investigation begins.
8. When the case involves PHS support, Georgia Tech cannot accept an admission of scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.
9. In this instance, the institution must inform ORI within twenty-four (24) hours of obtaining that information if PHS funding is involved.
    

Membership in professional and technical societies is core to the service and knowledge dissemination activities of many research and academic faculty. Membership in professional societies is required by many societies for chairing technical program committees for conferences, for serving on technical committees or groups, and for serving as associate and full editors for journal publications. Professional society membership is required for leadership in such societies, which indicates the technical leadership capabilities of the Institute as a whole. Further, these activities for which membership is required are important to the annual review process of many faculty within the University System of Georgia.

Given the magnitude of the importance of membership in technical societies, payments for professional society memberships of individual faculty members from allowable Georgia Tech funding sources should not be prohibited, and any restrictions or justifications associated with the approval process for these payments, including approval by a faculty member’s supervisor or unit head, should be minimal to conform to Georgia Tech and State of Georgia requirements. Funding sources for professional society membership payments may include, but are not limited to, faculty development funds, Georgia Tech Foundation funds, or when allowed, sponsored grants and contracts.