3.1 All Faculty

3.1 All Faculty abruneau3

The primary function of the Institute is education through teaching and research.  Acceptance of appointment obligates Faculty members to perform such service in instruction and research and discharge such other duties as may be assigned to them during the term of appointment.

 

3.1.1 Appointments

3.1.1 Appointments abruneau3

Policy Manual of the Board of Regents (Sections 8.2 and 8.3)

Every appointment or promotion shall be made solely on the basis of merit and the special abilities of the individual.

Relationship by family or marriage shall constitute neither an advantage nor a disadvantage provided the individual meets and fulfills the appropriate Georgia Tech appointment and promotion standards as set forth in these policies.  No individual shall be employed in a Unit under the supervision of a relative who has or may have a direct effect on the individual's progress, performance, or welfare.  For the purpose of this policy, relatives are defined as husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers, sisters, and any in-laws of any of the foregoing. Nothing in this Handbook shall be construed in such manner as to prevent the award of a scholarship, fellowship, or assistantship to a student who is related to an employee or a member of the Faculty or the Board of Regents.

Consistent with the policy of the Board of Regents on nondiscrimination and in keeping with the Institute's commitment, no person will be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, religious belief, age, sexual orientation, or presence of a non-job-related disability in any salary decision.

In the case of shared appointments where faculty members devote part of their time to another college, university, or division thereof, the letters of appointment shall specify the institution and the Unit where Faculty membership and the associated rights shall reside.

 

3.1.2 Faculty Salaries and Evaluations

3.1.2 Faculty Salaries and Evaluations abruneau3

3.1.2.1 Annual Evaluations

3.1.2.1 Annual Evaluations Rhett Mayor

Board of Regents Policy Manual, Section 8.3.5.1 

Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall establish definite and stated criteria, consistent with Board of Regents’ policies, the Academic and Student Affairs Handbook and the statutes of the institution, against which the performance of each faculty member will be evaluated. The criteria shall include evaluation of instruction, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service as is appropriate to the faculty member’s institution, school or college, and department, and responsibilities. The criteria shall be submitted to the USG Chief Academic Officer for review and approval. 

Each institution, as part of its evaluative procedures, will utilize a system of faculty evaluations by students, with the improvement of teaching effectiveness and student learning as the main focus of these student evaluations. The evaluation procedures may also utilize a system of peer evaluations, with emphasis placed on the faculty member’s professional development across the scope of their responsibilities. In those cases, in which a faculty member’s primary responsibilities do not include teaching, the evaluation should focus on excellence in those areas (e.g., research, administration, and elements of student success) where the individual’s major responsibilities lie. While a faculty member’s performance evaluation may be deemed as “Not Meeting Expectations” for other reasons, they must be so assessed if a majority of their work responsibilities are assessed as “Not Meeting Expectations.” 

Each University System of Georgia (USG) institution shall conduct in-depth pre-tenure reviews of all untenured, tenure-track faculty in their third year of progress toward tenure with a focus on the criteria established for promotion and tenure, emphasizing excellence in teaching and involvement in student success activities. The institution shall develop pre-tenure review policies, as well as any subsequent revisions. 

The result of the faculty member’s annual evaluations will be utilized as a part of subsequent pre-tenure and post-tenure reviews as well as retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. 

Also see USG policy 8.3.5 Evaluation of Personnel and USG Academic and Student Affairs Handbook (ASAH) sections 4.7 Post-Tenure Review and 4.8 Evaluation of Faculty. 

At Georgia Tech, the primary purpose of all performance evaluations is to support each faculty member’s career development and performance. Each faculty member shall be evaluated annually. In addition, see section 5.1 for discussion of Academic Freedom, as well as other relevant sections of the Handbook for information that support annual evaluations. 

Evaluation Criteria 

Annual performance evaluation will be based solely upon rubrics established by the faculty member’s unit. Evaluative rubrics, and any changes to these rubrics must be created jointly by faculty and administrators within the framework of faculty governance. Evaluative rubrics, and any changes to these rubrics, must be approved by a vote of the unit’s faculty using any applicable unit-level faculty governance procedures. 

The annual evaluation will encompass teaching, undergraduate/graduate student success activities, scholarship and creative activities, academic achievement, and professional service to the Institute or community. The annual evaluation will consider continuous professional growth and reflect the faculty member’s workload percentages, responsibilities, and role. Examples of these activities are contained in 3.3.7. 

Faculty members are generally subject to default evaluation criteria based on their role. These evaluation criteria must accurately reflect the faculty member’s workload allocation and job duties. If the faculty member’s duties or goals shift, faculty members, in collaboration with their supervisor, may propose a recalibration of applicable criteria for their role each year. Supervisor approval is required for criteria that differ from the default criteria for a role. The anticipated criteria for the next evaluation cycle must be established in writing during the annual conference with the supervisor at the beginning of the cycle and must accurately reflect the faculty member’s workload allocation and duties. 

Faculty Member’s Self-Evaluation 

The faculty member will conduct a self-evaluation and provide documentation and materials for the annual evaluation. Because the faculty’s work is ongoing, cumulative, and long-term in nature, faculty members will report and evaluate themselves annually within the context of the previous three years of performance during each annual evaluation, with emphasis on the most recent year’s performance. 

In the event that a faculty member deviates from the evaluation criteria for an evaluation cycle, the faculty member should provide the reasoning, alternative pursuit(s), and propose substitute criteria to allow the supervisor to understand and provide feedback on the faculty member’s performance. 

Supervisor’s Evaluation 

The faculty member’s appropriate supervisor or unit designee will respond to the faculty member’s self-evaluation and assess each criterion as: 

  1. Does Not Meet Expectations 

  1. Needs Improvement 

  1. Meets Expectations 

  1. Exceeds Expectations 

  1. Exemplary 

Rubrics are discussed in 3.1.2.1.1.  Each unit is responsible for developing its own rubrics through the framework of faculty governance. 

The supervisor’s overall evaluation also must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review (or promotion) appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage. 

A unit may elect a committee of peers to annually assess faculty in addition to the supervisory assessment. If such a committee annually assesses faculty, the committee will complete its evaluations prior to the supervisor’s and will share those results with the supervisor. Supervisors should consider the peer committee’s input when completing their own evaluations and should share both evaluations with the faculty member.  In the event that the committee and supervisor score the faculty member differently, the supervisor's Likert scores will govern, and the supervisor's scores and comments as well as the committee's scores and comments will be a permanent part of the faculty member's annual review to provide appropriate context. 

If a unit utilizes a unit committee for annual performance evaluation, the committee must be elected annually by a vote of the faculty members within the unit. The committee will have a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of twelve (12) members. Units may establish committee size by faculty vote. The unit’s Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) or equivalent for non-academic units shall conduct the election and be the final arbiter of its results. 

Annual Evaluation Conference, Signed Acknowledgements, and Responses 

The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation and their progression towards achieving future milestones.  

The supervisor’s written response to the faculty member’s self-evaluation must be provided to the faculty member within 60 calendar days of the self-evaluation’s due date. The faculty member must acknowledge receipt of the supervisor’s response with a signature. The faculty member will have the opportunity to respond, in writing, within 30 calendar days of the date of the supervisor’s evaluation. Evaluations must notify a faculty member of their right to respond and to request the assistance of the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee if the faculty member believes that their rights have been invaded or ignored. If the faculty member submits a response, the supervisor must provide a written reply within 10 business days of the faculty member’s response. The supervisor’s reply must note changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. 

Performance Remediation Plans 

If the faculty member’s performance is evaluated as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any of the criteria, the supervisor and faculty member will develop a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) to remediate their performance during the remainder of the evaluation period. The PRP must be specific, reasonable, achievable within the time frame, and reflect essential job duties of the faculty member. A PRP must also reflect the timing of a faculty member’s contract; remediation cannot be required of a faculty member outside of the contract period. 

If the faculty member elects not to collaborate with the supervisor, the supervisor will create an appropriate PRP. In the event of a disagreement between the faculty member and the supervisor concerning the PRP, the plan will be brought before the unit’s elected post-tenure review committee (or similar elected committee) for mediation and resolution. 

The supervisor will meet with the faculty member twice during the fall semester and twice during the spring semester to review progress, to document additional needs and available resources, and to plan accomplishments for the upcoming time period. After each meeting, the supervisor will summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to successfully complete the PRP. The supervisor must advise the faculty member of the possible consequences for failure to meet the expectations of the PRP during each quarterly meeting. 

For non-tenured faculty members (i.e., non-tenure-track faculty and untenured, tenure-track faculty), the PRP and subsequent steps are suggested for developmental purposes, but completing all these steps is not necessary for non-renewal. For guidance on non-renewal of non-tenured faculty, please see BOR Policy 8.3.4 Notice of Employment and Resignation and GT Faculty Handbook section 3.2.2. 

Annual Evaluation Immediately After Performance Remediation Plan 

If the supervisor evaluates a non-tenure track faculty member as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any evaluation criterion in the next consecutive annual evaluation, the supervisor may propose a subsequent PRP or take other actions as appropriate.   

If the supervisor evaluates a tenured faculty member as “1 - Does Not Meet Expectations” or “2 - Needs Improvement” on any evaluation criterion in two consecutive annual evaluations, the supervisor will recommend a corrective post-tenure review. A recommendation for a corrective post-tenure review, and the accompanying annual evaluation, must be reviewed by the unit’s elected post-tenure review committee. If the post-tenure review committee does not agree with the recommendation for a corrective post-tenure review, the matter will be referred to the Dean (or analogous administrator) for determination. If the Dean (or analogous administrator) determines that a corrective post-tenure review is warranted, the committee will submit a written statement of dissent to accompany the Dean’s decision. For untenured, tenure-track faculty, see section 3.3.3 Administrative Reviews. 

Conflict Resolution 

Pursuant to 3.1.9, members of the faculty who believe their rights, under the aforementioned provisions, have been invaded or ignored shall have the right to request consideration of their case by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee. 

3.1.2.1.1 Evaluation Rubrics, Scales, and Criteria

3.1.2.1.1 Evaluation Rubrics, Scales, and Criteria Rhett Mayor

USG ASAH 4.4 Faculty Evaluation Systems: 

  • Both qualitative and quantitative assessments are acceptable; however, all methods of evaluation should strive for objectivity and reduce subjectivity as much as possible. 

  • The measure of “Effectiveness in Academic Assigned Duties” should include assessments of both instructional quality and quality learning. Criteria should include measures such as an assessment of student perception, evidence of effective student learning, the use of continuous improvement methodologies, peer assessment of pedagogy, an evaluation of curricular design, quality of assessment and course construction, and the use of established learning science methodologies. 

Each unit will develop its own rubrics for the evaluation of instruction, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service using the unit faculty’s governance procedures. Units are encouraged to evaluate a faculty member’s student success activities within the context of the rubrics of instruction, research/scholarship, and service. The Provost’s office will review unit criteria and rubrics and provide feedback to ensure consistency of expectations across the Institute and alignment with the Institute’s mission. 

The rubrics will provide sufficient guidance to assess whether a faculty member’s performance is appropriate to their rank and stage of professional career development at Georgia Tech and their unit. 

3.1.2.2 Faculty Salaries

3.1.2.2 Faculty Salaries Rhett Mayor

Entry Level Salary 

Because of the complexity of the Institute, individual Units may have unique missions within the overall Institute mission. The following statements, therefore, are intended to provide a framework within which individual units develop specific criteria appropriate for their discipline. 

The salary level associated with each faculty position shall be based upon the requirements of the position and the qualifications of the individual employed to fill the position. The qualifications of the individual shall include academic degrees earned, teaching and other relevant experience, scholarship and creative activities, academic achievements and honors, and relevant professional achievements and recognition. 

In addition to personal qualifications, consideration will be given to "marketplace" factors such as availability (supply and demand) of qualified individuals, salaries offered by competitors (industry and other academic institutions) for individuals, and the intensity of the Institute’s need for these individuals. 

Merit Increases 

Merit increases for full-time Faculty shall be based on an evaluation of job assignment and overall productivity. All dimensions of the faculty member’s role shall be considered, although weights assigned may vary across disciplines and even within a discipline, depending on the job assignment of the individual and on the needs of the Unit. In evaluating a faculty member's performance, careful consideration will be given to the quality of the individual's contributions in instruction (classroom-related and individual supervision), scholarship and creative activities, service (to students, the academic community, the Institute, the discipline, and the external community), and student success activities. 

3.1.3 Notice of Resignation or Retirement

3.1.3 Notice of Resignation or Retirement abruneau3

Faculty Members with Contracts
Persons employed for the fiscal year or for the academic year of two semesters have an obligation to inform, as soon as practical, their immediate supervisor of their intention to resign on completion of an appointment period. Such persons shall give written notice of their intention to resign to the President no later than two (2) weeks after being notified of the terms of the Employment Contract for the next fiscal or academic year.

Faculty Members without Contracts
Any member of the Faculty not included in the preceding paragraph who plans to leave the Institute shall give written notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date.

 

 

3.1.4 Professional Absence and Leave Policies

3.1.4 Professional Absence and Leave Policies abruneau3

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.

Absence
Faculty members shall obtain approval in advance from the Chair of their School or from the appropriate administrative officer in non-instructional divisions to be absent from assigned duties.  The requirement of advance notice may be waived in an emergency.  Faculty members shall assist in arranging for their duties to be performed during periods of their absence.

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.

Leave of Absence without Pay
Faculty members may be granted a leave of absence for a clearly specified period of time, without pay, by the President with notification to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. Leaves without pay shall be granted to all Faculty members who are ordered to active military service of the United States. The status of a tenured Faculty member who is granted a leave of absence for a specific period, upon recommendation of the President and approval of the Board of Regents, shall not be impaired by such

Leave of Absence with Pay
Leaves with pay shall be granted only for the purpose of promoting scholarly work and encouraging professional development.  Leaves with pay shall be made only after consideration of the likelihood of the Faculty member’s being able to accomplish the purpose for which the leave is requested; the effect that granting of the leave will have on the Faculty member’s unit; and the availability of funds.

Faculty members who have been granted a leave of absence with pay must return the full amount of compensation received while onleave if they do not remain with the Institute for at least one (1) calendar year after the termination of the paid leave.

Impact of a Leave of Absence on Tenure Status

The status of a tenured Faculty member who is granted a leave of absence for a specific period, shall not be impaired by such absence from the Institute.

The status of a tenured Faculty member on leave of absence for service with the United States Armed Forces shall not be impaired by such service.  All Faculty members in such service shall be placed on leave of absence.

A Faculty member who has served thirty (30) days or less with the United States Armed Forces must report to work on the first regularly scheduled work day beginning more than eight (8) hours after the member’s completion of service.  A Faculty member who has served thirty-one (31) to one hundred and eighty (180) days must report to work no later than fourteen (14) days after the conclusion of the member’s military service.  A Faculty member who has served one hundred and eighty-one (181) days or more must report to work no later than ninety (90) days after the conclusion of military service.

A Faculty member on leave of absence for military service shall lose tenure if he/she does not notify the President of his/her intention to return as soon as practicable and does not report to work in accordance with the preceding schedule.

Outside Activities
Faculty members may engage in outside professional activities (including professional societies, governmental or industrial committees, review boards, panels, consultation, etc.) with or without compensation provided that the activity:

  • In no way interferes with the Faculty member’s obligations to the Institute.
  • Creates no conflicts of interest.
  • Has been fully disclosed to and approved by the Chair of the Faculty member’s unit or by the appropriate administrative officer in non-instructional units. 
  • Consulting may be performed only after the Faculty member’s obligations to the Institute have been fulfilled.  Faculty members must conform to the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Outside Professional Activity (See Section 5.6 of this Handbook).

3.1.5 Academic Rank for Administrators

3.1.5 Academic Rank for Administrators abruneau3

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.

3.1.6 Award of Emeritus|Emerita|Emeritum|Emerit Title

3.1.6 Award of Emeritus|Emerita|Emeritum|Emerit Title abruneau3

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.
     

3.1.7 Use of Office Space by Retired Faculty

3.1.7 Use of Office Space by Retired Faculty abruneau3

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.

3.1.8 Concerns, Complaints, and the Ombuds Office

3.1.8 Concerns, Complaints, and the Ombuds Office abruneau3

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.

3.1.9 Grievance: Process and Procedures

3.1.9 Grievance: Process and Procedures abruneau3

Rights of Appeal 

  • Members of the Faculty who believe their rights have been invaded or ignored shall have a right to request consideration of their case by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee.  They may appeal a resulting recommendation of the Committee to the President.  If the President’s decision does not settle the matter to their satisfaction, they may appeal the decision as stated in the next paragraph. 
  • Members of the Faculty may appeal any final decision of the Institute, in accordance with Board of Regents Policy 6.26 Application for Discretionary Review, by applying, without prejudice to their position, for a review of the decision.  The application for review shall be submitted to the University System Office of Legal Affairs (USO Legal Affairs) for a review of the decision within a period of twenty (20) calendar days following the decision of the President. 

 

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

3.1.10 Faculty Conduct, Discipline, and Removal of Faculty Members

3.1.10 Faculty Conduct, Discipline, and Removal of Faculty Members abruneau3

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.) 

 

3.1.11 Possible Suspension in Cases when a Charge of Violation of State or Federal Laws is Pending

3.1.11 Possible Suspension in Cases when a Charge of Violation of State or Federal Laws is Pending abruneau3

(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.

3.1.12 Sanctions and Allocation of Support Services to Faculty Members

3.1.12 Sanctions and Allocation of Support Services to Faculty Members rb44
Support services are provided to enhance the teaching, research, and service programs of the department. Accordingly these services may not be denied to a faculty member as a sanction.