Academic & Student Affairs Handbook

Academics Affairs Division

4.10 Leaves

(Last Modified June 22, 2020)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.8, NON-TENURE TRACK PERSONNEL

USG Institutions can establish professional positions designated as non-tenure track. Institutional presidents have the authority to convert a non-tenure track position to a tenure track position and to convert a tenure track position to a non-tenure track one. However, the transfer of an individual in a tenure track position to a non-tenure track position must be done on a voluntary basis only.

(Last Modified October 13, 2020)   Report a broken link

Part-time faculty are non-tenured faculty employed at a single USG institution or at more than one USG institution and are subject to the following conditions:

  1. Are employed as-needed, on a per-course, per semester limited term basis at the discretion of the institution and will receive no compensation unless a part-time assignment is given

  2. Are not accruing time toward tenure

  3. Are required to sign a letter of agreement for each appointment period and are not issued contracts

  4. Are not the same as adjunct (courtesy) faculty appointments

  5. Are not eligible for USG benefits, unless the part-time appointment is regular and .5 FTE or greater, in which case the benefits offered will be based on FTE in accordance with the Employees Categories policy in the Human Resources Administrative Practices Manual

  6. Are required to work an average of less than 30 hours per week over the academic year. Hours worked per week are based on Contact hours. See conversion chart to determine the number of contact hours that can be assigned to the part-time faculty to meet the less than 30 hours per week condition A faculty member employed at an institution at a .75 FTE or greater, other than in a temporary status based on the definition in the Employee Categories policy in the Human Resources Administrative Practices Manual, http://www.usg.edu/hr/manual/employee_categories, must be considered benefits eligible and treated accordingly.

A faculty member employed at an institution at a .75 FTE or greater, other than in a temporary status based on the definition in the Employee Categories policy in the Human Resources Administrative Practices Manual, http://www.usg.edu/hr/manual/employee_categories, must be considered benefits eligible and treated accordingly. For additional information about part-time faculty, see the following sections of the BoR Policy Manual:

• 1.2.5, Institution Responsibilities

• 3.2.2, Election of Faculties

8.2, General Policies for all Personnel

8.3, Additional Policies for Faculty

(Last Modified October 13, 2020)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 2.6, PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
BoR POLICY 8.3.2, REGENTS’ PROFESSORSHIPS
BoR POLICY 8.2.9.3, OTHER INSURANCE

With the exception of named (endowed) faculty appointments (Section 4.3.2, Establishment and Appointment of Named Faculty Positions), the president of each institution shall be responsible for the initial appointment and re-appointment of all faculty and administrative employees.

4.3.1 Employment Beyond Retirement

(Last Modified September 1, 2020)   Report a broken link

SOURCE:
BoR POLICY 8.2.8.3, EMPLOYMENT BEYOND RETIREMENT

Reemployment at a USG Institution of any USG retiree receiving benefits from the Teachers Retirement System (TRS), the Employees Retirement System (ERS), or the Regents’ Retirement Plan (RRP) must be approved by the president of the hiring institution and follow the conditions set forth in BoR Policy 8.2.8.3. Employment of USG retirees must be based on the direct needs of the institution for the services of the individual and on the individual’s ability to make a distinctive contribution to the institution. The rehire of retirees from other state agencies (e.g., public schools), even those receiving benefits from TRS, ERS, or RRP, do NOT require presidential approval.

Approval for all rehires of retiree appointments should be processed in advance to allow for presidential approval prior to their date of appointment. USG retirees who have not been approved by the hiring institution’s president cannot be employed by USG institutions.


4.3.2 Establishment and Appointment of Named Faculty Positions

(Last Modified April 12, 2011)   Report a broken link

SOURCE:
BoR POLICY 8.3.2.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF NAMED FACULTY POSITIONS

Requests to establish endowed chairs, professorships, or fellowships should be sent to the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs to be placed on the next available BOR meeting agenda. Requests to establish a named faculty position should include evidence of funding for the position and that funding meets or exceeds the minimum funding levels specified in BOR Policy 8.3.2.2. All named faculty positions must be approved by the BOR before an individual can be appointed to the position.

Requests to appoint an individual to a BOR-approved named faculty position should be sent to the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs and processed in advance to obtain BOR approval prior to the date of appointment. When the appointment date must occur before BOR approval can be obtained, administrative approval for the appointment must be obtained from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs. Administrative approval will cover only the period of time between the date of appointment and BOR approval, which must be requested at the next available BOR meeting (considering BOR agenda deadlines and the schedule of BOR meetings).

Requests to establish a position and to appoint someone to the position can be made at the same BOR meeting, but the appointment request will be considered only if the establishment of the position is approved.


4.3.3 Sample Faculty Contracts

(Last Modified September 1, 2020)   Report a broken link

Sample faculty contracts may be accessed at Templates for Contracts for Academic Personnel.


4.3.4 Inter-institutional Faculty Appointments

(Last Modified April 12, 2011)   Report a broken link

Guidelines for inter-institutional faculty appointment policies and procedures must be approved by the Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the USG or his/her designee and should adhere to the following parameters:

  • Institutions that have identified a need for an inter-institutional faculty appointment must establish procedures for searching and hiring for the appointment. These procedures must be approved by each institutional president involved in the appointment.
  • Before faculty who are already employed full-time at a USG institution can accept an inter-institutional appointment at another USG institution, they must obtain approval from the appropriate administrators (including the president) at their home institution.
  • Faculty with inter -institutional appointments will have a contract at their home institution and a written Memorandum of Appointment (MOA) between the home institution and the secondary institution(s)containing the following information:

    • Name of the home institution
    • Beginning and ending dates of the inter-institutional appointment
    • Tenure type of the position (tenure, if applicable, will reside at the home institution)
    • Rank at the home institution
    • Position title
    • Percentage of workload at each institution
    • Salary, including the amount paid by each institution
    • Percentage of benefits paid by each institution
    • Process for the exchange of funds for salary and benefits between institutions. This process must follow the 5.3.3 Payroll Policy for Joint Staffing in the USG Business Procedures Manual. If the joint appointment involves minimal work at the secondary institution(s), no exchange of funds may be necessary.
    • Responsibilities of each institution for supporting the work of the faculty position (e.g., professional travel, library privileges, professional development, equipment needs, etc.)
    • Procedures of the home institution will govern the evaluation of the faculty member’s performance, including annual reviews, pre-tenure and tenure review for faculty hired in tenure-track positions, promotion, and post-tenure review. The MOA must specify how each secondary institution will provide feedback to the home institution for performance evaluation purposes.
    • Procedure for input from the secondary institution(s) if the home institution is considering terminating the faculty member in the inter-institutional appointment or eliminating the faculty position
    • Other information deemed necessary by the home or secondary institutions

Requests for approval of new guidelines or revisions to previously approved guidelines should be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs for processing.


(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.7 TENURE AND CRITERIA FOR TENURE

All criteria and expectations for faculty performance, including the criteria for tenure, should be stated in writing and available in a faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. Note that the BOR has set minimum criteria for tenure that must be met by all institutions. These minimum criteria, including specific degree requirements, vary across institutional sectors (see BOR policy 8.3.7).

Institutions can set additional standards and requirements above these minimum criteria, but they must be approved by the Board. Any BOR-approved changes to tenure criteria at an institution must be updated annually in the faculty handbook on the institution’s website, and a summary of the changes made must be submitted to the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs.

The institutional timeline for the review of faculty for tenure must be completed by early February of a given academic year in order to meet the data entry deadline of the end of February for the annual report to the Board of Regents. A copy of the president’s written notification of the award of tenure to an individual must be forwarded to the University System Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer.

In exceptional cases, an institution president may grant the award of tenure upon initial appointment of a faculty member (see BOR Policy 8.3.7 for conditions necessary to justify the award of tenure on appointment). The Chancellor’s approval is required to award an individual who has not previously held tenure and is being appointed to an administrative position.

Institutions must annually submit the number of tenure appointments awarded in a fiscal year. Reports should include gender and race of all such appointments and must be submitted to the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Faculty Affairs by June 30 of each year.

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.6, CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION

All criteria and expectations for faculty performance, including the criteria for promotion to each rank, should be stated in writing and available in a faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. The BOR has set minimum criteria for promotion that must be met by all institutions. These minimum criteria, including specific degree requirements, vary across institutional sectors (see BoR Policy 8.3.6). Institutions can set additional standards and requirements above these minimum criteria but they must be approved by the Board. Any BOR-approved changes to promotion criteria at an institution must be updated annually in the faculty handbook on the institution’s website and a summary of the changes made must be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs.

The institutional timeline for the review of faculty for promotion must be completed by early February of a given academic year in order to meet the data entry deadline of the end of February for the annual report to the Board of Regents.

Faculty are eligible for and may be reviewed for promotion in rank during their fifth year of service in their current rank. If recommended for promotion, the new rank will go into effect at the beginning of their next contract period. Recommendations for promotion are not normally considered for individuals who are currently on leaves of absence.

Under special circumstances, faculty who are performing significantly above the expectations for their current rank may be considered for “early” promotion. At state universities and state colleges, “early” promotion may only be considered according to the following time table:

  • For early promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, faculty must have served a minimum of three years as a Lecturer

  • For early promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor, faculty must have served a minimum of three years as an Instructor

  • For early promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, faculty must have served a minimum of four years as an Assistant Professor

  • For early promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor, faculty must have served a minimum of four years as an Associate Professor

At research and comprehensive universities, faculty may be considered for “early” promotion with less than the required minimum years of service in rank listed above. However, these cases require strong justification and approval by the president.

4.6.1 Probationary Credit Towards Promotion

At the time of an individual’s initial appointment, 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 institution. In extraordinary cases, research and comprehensive universities may award more than three years of probationary credit at initial faculty appointments. Such awards require approval by the president and written notification to the USG Chief Academic Officer. Individuals serving in part-time, temporary, or limited term positions are not eligible for probationary credit towards promotion. Without the approval of the President, faculty given probationary credit towards promotion may not use their years of credit towards consideration for early promotion.

4.5.1 Probationary Credit Toward Tenure

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.7 TENURE AND CRITERIA FOR TENURE

A maximum of three years probationary credit toward tenure for service at other institutions or service at the rank of Instructor or Lecturer within the institution can be established only at the time of the individual’s initial appointment to or promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor. Individuals serving in part-time, limited term or full-time temporary positions are not eligible for probationary credit toward tenure.

If, due to an error of omission, a request for awarding of probationary credit toward tenure was not made at the time of the initial appointment, the President should consider a request only if it is submitted within the first few months after employment.

Probationary credit toward tenure cannot be established during leaves of absence.

Probationary credit awarded on appointment may be used toward determining an individual’s eligibility for tenure, but the individual is not required to do so.


(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.5, EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL

Each institution is responsible for establishing definite and stated criteria for faculty performance that are consistent with Regents’ policies and the statutes of the institution. These criteria must be stated in writing and available in a faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. All changes to these performance criteria must be updated in the faculty handbook in a timely fashion. At a minimum, faculty evaluation systems must include the following:

  • Annual reviews (for faculty and senior administrators)

  • Pre-tenure progress reviews for faculty in their third year

  • Reviews of graduate teaching and laboratory assistants

  • Subordinate (one level down) reviews of senior administrators at least once every five years

  • Tenure reviews

  • Promotion reviews

  • Post-tenure reviews

The following steps should be made a part of all faculty evaluation systems:

  • The immediate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation.

  • The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual written evaluation.

  • The faculty member will be given a specific period of time (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.

  • The immediate supervisor will acknowledge in writing his/her receipt of this response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the records.

4.8.1 Renewal and Nonrenewal of Contracts of Non-tenured Faculty

(Last Modified February 21, 2024)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.4, NOTICE OF EMPLOYMENT AND RESIGNATION
Effective Date: October 15, 2008

As of October 15, 2008, institutions are no longer required to provide written notice of renewal of contract to non-tenured faculty with the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. Faculty with the rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, who are employed under written contract, and who served full-time for the entire previous year, have the presumption of renewal for the next academic year unless notified in writing, by the president of an institution or his/her authorized representative, of the intent not to renew.

Procedures to be followed when a non-tenured faculty member’s contract is not renewed are specified in BOR Policy 8.3.4. Deadlines for notice of nonrenewal vary depending on the length of service of the non-tenured faculty member.

Different letters should be used for different circumstances:

  1. Circumstance 1. The President issues a letter to his/her designated representative authorizing him/her to notify non-tenured faculty that no new contract will be offered. This form must be used whenever someone other than the President gives notice of nonrenewal.

  2. Circumstance 2. The President’s designated representative issues a letter to the non-tenured faculty member notifying him/her that no new contract will be offered.

  3. Circumstance 3. The President issues a letter directly to the non-tenured faculty member notifying him/her that no new contract will be offered. (This form may be used by the President regardless of whether authorization for nonrenewal has been given to anyone.)

WARNING: A letter from the President to his/her representative authorizing him/her to notify non-tenured faculty that no new contract will be offered must be used whenever the President’s representative issues the notice of nonrenewal. Some courts have held that in the absence of specific written authorization from the President, the notice of nonrenewal is deficient and subjects the sender to damages.

Also, the courts have held that a “conditional” notice of nonrenewal is not sufficient. For example, nonrenewals may not be conditioned on some future eventuality such as promotion, tenure, vacancies, etc.


4.8.2 Faculty Work in the Schools

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.14, ENHANCING TEACHING AND LEARNING IN K-12 SCHOOLS AND USG INSTITUTIONS

The BOR values USG faculty engagement with K-12 schools. BOR Policy 8.3.14 states BOR expectation for faculty engagement with the public schools in institutions that prepare teachers. The Board expects presidents, provosts, academic vice presidents, and deans of colleges of education and arts and sciences in institutions that prepare teachers to advocate for, assess, recognize, and reward practices consistent with this policy.

Faculty effort under the provisions of this policy is anticipated in teaching, scholarship, and/or service. The USG values all types of faculty scholarship, including the Scholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and the Scholarship of Engagement. All faculty members are encouraged to enhance their classroom instruction by using scholarly teaching. It also is important for faculty to assist in improving teaching quality and student learning in K-12 classrooms by service to the schools. Definitions and examples of these various activities are provided below for illustrative purposes. See examples of faculty work in each of the three categories – Teaching, Scholarship, and Service – in
Cases of Faculty Work in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.

Teaching

Definition: Scholarly teaching is teaching that focuses on student learning and is well grounded in the sources and resources appropriate to the field. The aim of scholarly teaching is to make transparent how faculty members have made learning possible (Shulman).

Evidence of Scholarly Teaching (under normal conditions, the expectation is that faculty will do all three):

  • Evidence that the faculty member reads the pedagogical literature, or attends instructional development sessions, in his/her own discipline and then branches out to the broader pedagogical literature
  • Evidence that the faculty member tries some of the teaching methods from the literature/instructional development sessions in his/her own classes
  • Evidence that the faculty member assesses whether or not he/she has been successful in increasing student learning by doing some formative evaluation with students, adjusting his/her approach, asking a peer to come into the class to review the changes he/she has implemented

Scholarship

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Definition: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is the “systematic examination of issues about student learning and instructional conditions which promote the learning (i.e., building on previous scholarship and shared concerns), which is subjected to blind review by peers who represent the judgment of the profession, and, after review, is disseminated to the professional community” (Research Universities Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning).

Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:

  • Evidence that the faculty member’s scholarship in the schools or in the university classroom is public, peer reviewed, and critiqued
  • Evidence that the faculty member’s scholarship is exchanged with other members of professional communities through postings on websites, presentations to h/her department or college, presentations at professional conferences, and/or written up and published.
  • Evidence that the scholarship builds upon previous scholarship and shared concerns
  • Evidence that the scholarship contributes new questions and knowledge about teaching and learning

The Scholarship of Engagement

Definition: The Scholarship of Engagement in schools is characterized by the following:

  • It is to be conducted as an academic engagement with the public schools.
  • It is to involve the responsible application of knowledge, theory and/or conceptual framework to consequential problems.
  • It should test a research question or hypothesis.
  • One must be able to use the results to improve practice and inform further questions.
  • Resulting work should be available for dissemination for peer review of results.

(Glassick, Huber and Maeroff).

Evidence of the Scholarship of Engagement:

  • Evidence that the faculty member designs and implements a research agenda in at least one area of need recognized by the public schools
  • Evidence that the faculty member applies relevant knowledge toward resolution of the identified need
  • Evidence that the faculty member assesses the impact of the engagement
  • Evidence that the faculty member disseminates for peer review the results of the outreach

The Scholarship of Discovery

Definition: The Scholarship of Discovery is basic research in the disciplines including the creative work of faculty in the literary, visual, and performing arts. It is the “pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a fierce determination to give free rein to fair and honest inquiry, wherever it may lead” (Glassick, Huber and Maeroff). It contributes to the stock of human knowledge in the academic disciplines.

Evidence of the Scholarship of Discovery:

  • Evidence that the faculty member’s research is innovative (as opposed to routine) as judged by peers at the institution and elsewhere
  • Evidence that the faculty member’s research represents quality, rather than mere quantity
  • Evidence of the faculty member’s publications in high quality refereed journals and the quality and quantity of citations and reprints of h/her research publications
  • If appropriate for the discipline, evidence of the ability to attract extramural funding
  • Evidence of invited seminars and presentations (abstracts), if travel funds are provided, are also an indication of the Scholarship of Discovery

Service

Definition: service is outreach or engagement by higher education faculty for the purpose of contributing to the public good. Contributions to the public good may include faculty work that contributes to solutions to complex societal problems, to the quality of life of Georgia’s citizens, and to the advancement of public higher education. In the case of service to the public schools, the intent should be for the improvement of teaching quality and student learning. The following activities might be included in work with the schools: involvement in Learning Communities, workshops given based on need, collaborative development of courses, unit writing for the new Georgia Performance Standards, design of field experiences to support existing courses, engagement in co-observation / vertical alignment, etc.

Evidence of Service:

  • Evidence that the faculty member links his/her work in some way to public contemporary issues and/or to improving the quality of life.
  • Evidence that the faculty member, either through scholarly work and/or service, applies knowledge toward solutions to complex societal problems and human needs.
  • Evidence that the faculty member contributes to the continuous improvement of public higher education.
  • Evidence that the faculty member contributes in some way to the public good.

Works Cited

Glassick, C.E., M.T.Huber, and G.I. Maeroff. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Research Universities Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Policies and Procedures Supporting the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the Research University (Draft). Carnegie Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2005.

Shulman, Lee. “Course Anatomy: The Dissection and Analysis of Knowledge Through Teaching.” The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine their Teaching to Advance Practice and Improve Student Learning. Ed. P. Hutchings. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. 1998. 5-12.


(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR Policy 8.2.18.2.4 Institution Guidelines for Faculty Outside Consulting

The USG considers professional consulting by faculty to be both reasonable and desirable. Each institution is responsible for developing guidelines to govern consulting activities of faculty members. These guidelines must comply with BoR Policy 8.2.18.2.4 Institution Guidelines for Faculty Outside Consulting, be stated in writing, and be available in a faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website.

The following disclaimer should be included in any written reports prepared by faculty members of the USG for clients for whom they perform consultative services:

“This report represents the opinion of the author(s). It carries no official endorsement by ________________. ”

The blank should be filled in with the name of the University System institution employing the author(s).

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.2.7 and the following subordinate sections

The Board of Regents has established policies on the following types of leave:

  1. Vacation/Annual Leave (Policy 8.2.7.1)
  2. Sick Leave with Pay (Policy 8.2.7.2)
  3. Sick Leave without Pay (Policy 8.2.7.3)
  4. Educational and Professional Leave (8.2.7.4)
  5. Military Leave with Pay (Policy 8.2.7.5)
  6. Family and Medical Leave (Policy 8.2.7.6)
  7. Other Leave - Inclement Weather (Policy 8.2.7.7)

Miscellaneous leave includes leave related to court duty, voting, military physical exams, personal leave, leave for organ and marrow donation, and other leave due to inclement weather or emergencies.

4.10.1 Interpretation of Sick Leave

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.2.7.2 & 8.2.7.3

The following provisions for the reporting of sick leave shall apply to all full-time faculty on 9 or 10 month contracts, employed by institutions of the USG, who serve primarily in assignments defined by faculty roles in instruction, research and scholarly activity, and service:

  1. Faculty are responsible for informing their immediate supervisors of any illness that prohibits them from meeting their assigned responsibilities.
  2. In reporting sick leave, faculty will report leave based on the number of whole hours sick as defined by the BoR Policy 8.2.7, with a full day being eight (8) hours, a half day being four (4) hours, and less than a half day based on whole hours missed, with a full week being the equivalent of a forty-hour workweek.
  3. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted to indicate that faculty work on a standardized schedule.

4.10.2 Educational and Professional Leave

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.2.7.4, EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LEAVE

Leaves of absence of one year or less with or without pay may be granted by the institution’s president and reported to the Chancellor. All leaves of absence must be entered into the appropriate HR data systems. Recommendations for extensions of one-year leaves of absence or the initial granting of leaves of more than one year, require the Chancellor’s or his/her designee’s approval. The president’s request to the Chancellor for such leaves must include the following:

  1. A statement that the faculty member’s absence will not adversely affect institutional programming
  2. Strong justification for the request for leave with pay to a faculty member who has not been employed at the institution for at least three years
  3. A statement of the direct and significant benefits that will accrue to the institution as the result of the faculty member’s activities during the period of leave
  4. If the granting of leave with pay will require additional institutional expenditures, a note of that fact (If the granting of leave with pay will not require additional institutional expenditures, no statement to that effect is required)
  5. The amount of leave pay, determined with reference to the following:
    • The normal rate of leave pay shall be considered as an amount up to one-half of the regular salary of the faculty member during the period of leave.
    • Extraordinary justification must accompany a recommendation for leave pay in an amount exceeding one-half of the faculty member’s regular salary during the period of leave or for leave pay at full regular salary for the period of leave.
    • The amount of any external stipend or any other external remuneration to be received by the faculty member for his/her activities during the period of leave shall be taken into account in the determination of institutional leave pay recommended. The recommendation for leave must indicate the source and the amount of applicable external remuneration.

(Last Modified February 9, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.12.4, RESEARCH, SATURDAY CLASSES AND OFF-CAMPUS CONTINUING EDUCATION
Business Procedure Manual, Section 5.3.2, Supplemental Pay, including Temporary Assignments

Faculty Overloads

Under certain circumstances, qualified teaching faculty and administrative faculty may be called upon to take on additional teaching, research, or service responsibilities at their home institution. Whenever possible in this situation, institutions should consider adjusting the individual’s primary duties to incorporate the extra duties associated with the overload(s). If it is determined that a workload adjustment cannot be made, the faculty member’s contract should be amended to reflect a temporary change in compensation warranted by the additional responsibilities. A contract modification should also be done when faculty are involved in joint staffing agreements that warrant additional compensation at another USG institution (see Section 5.3.3 in the Business Procedures Manual).

Because overloads involve a modification to a faculty member’s original contract, Section 5.3.2 of the Business Procedures Manual on Extra Compensation does not apply to faculty overloads.

When full-time exempt professional (i.e., non-contract) employees with the appropriate qualifications take on additional responsibilities, institutions should consider adjusting the staff member’s duties to incorporate the extra responsibilities associated with teaching. When workload adjustments cannot be made, the institution’s president should determine if extra compensation is warranted for the overload(s). When extra compensation is to be paid to non-contract employees, it should be consistent with Section 5.3.2 of the Business Procedures Manual on Extra Compensation.

(Last Modified October 13, 2020)   Report a broken link

Fiscal Year (Twelve Month) Contract Forms

Non-Tenure Track Personnel and Non-Tenured Personnel on Tenure Track

Word

PDF

Tenured Personnel

Word

PDF

Georgia Gwinnett Personnel

Word

PDF

Tenured Personnel Holding Joint Employment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center-Augusta and the Medical College of Georgia

Word

PDF

Academic Year Contract Forms

Non-Tenure Track Personnel and Non-Tenured Personnel on Tenure Track

Word

PDF

Tenured Personnel

Word

PDF

Georgia Gwinnett Personnel

Word

PDF

Contracts for Faculty Ranked Administrators

Word

PDF

4.3.5 Salary Conversion Guidelines for Fiscal and Academic Year Faculty Appointments

(Last Modified January 17, 2012)   Report a broken link

Last reviewed: July 2011

SOURCE:
BoR POLICY 8.3.12.2, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SALARY - SALARY FOR A FISCAL YEAR ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE RETURNING TO AN ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT AS A FACULTY MEMBER

When a faculty member on an academic year contract is given a fiscal year administrative appointment, institutions should pay the faculty member an administrative stipend based on the job description and responsibilities related to their administrative role. The administrative stipend should be identified separately from the base salary amount in the faculty member’s contract and the contact should specify that the stipend will no longer be available when the administrative appointment ends.

Sample contract language:

“Please be advised that your employment as [Faculty Rank and Administrative Title] is at a salary of [Total Salary Amount] from July 1, [Year] and ending on June 30, [Year]. This salary includes an academic year base salary of [Base Salary Amount] plus an administrative stipend of [Stipend Amount] for your administrative duties. Should you no longer hold your administrative position; your administrative stipend will be removed from your total salary.”

The amount of the stipend may vary across units based on the specific responsibilities of the administrative position. For example, a department chair in a department with 40 faculty might receive a larger stipend than a department chair heading a department with 5 faculty. Similarly, a department chair leading a department with multiple degree programs and/or centers might receive a larger stipend than a chair leading a less complex department. The amount of the stipend can be renegotiated annually if the administrative responsibilities change over time. Merit pay increases for administrative faculty may be based on the total fiscal salary (base salary plus the stipend amount).

When a fiscal year administrative employee returns to their academic appointment as a faculty member, the administrative stipend is removed and the faculty member returns to their academic year base salary amount, which should be similar to other faculty in the department with similar rank and experience or other faculty in similar positions at the institution.


(Last Modified May 5, 2022)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 3.2.1 FACULTY MEMBERSHIP
BoR POLICY 3.2.1.1 CORPS OF INSTRUCTION
BoR POLICY 3.2.1.2 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS
BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY
BoR POLICY 8.3.7 TENURE AND CRITERIA FOR TENURE
BoR POLICY 8.3.6 CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION
BoR POLICY 8.3.5.4 POST-TENURE REVIEW
BoR POLICY 8.3.8 NON-TENURE TRACK PERSONNEL

The USG faculty evaluation system is comprised of annual evaluation, three-year pre-tenure evaluation, tenure evaluation, promotion evaluation and post-tenure evaluation. For faculty hired as a lecturer, senior lecturer, principal lecturer, instructor, or as an academic professional, the evaluation system is comprised of annual evaluations and promotion evaluation.

Each institution is responsible for establishing definitive policies, processes, and stated criteria for faculty evaluation that are aligned with the mission, statutes, and academic organization of the institution and are consistent with Regents’ policies. These policies, processes, and stated criteria must incorporate appropriate due process mechanisms and support the principles of academic freedom. Institutional performance criteria must be identified and defined at each level of evaluation and must be stated in writing and available in the institution’s faculty handbook posted on an institution’s website. All changes to performance criteria must be updated in the faculty handbook in a timely fashion. These updates must be done in advance of the next review cycle and allow time for faculty to incorporate those expectations into the preparation of their review documents (e.g. pre-tenure, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure).

Policies, Processes, and Reporting
Each institution must have written and published faculty evaluation review policies, processes, and criteria for faculty that are consistent with Board of Regents policy and USG guidelines and approved by the USG Chief Academic Officer. Each institution should develop templates for annual review, pre-tenure, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure applications. These templates should provide clear guidance to what the faculty members need to submit. Tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, and faculty outside of the tenure process should be evaluated based upon their academic discipline-specific criteria, and the institutional evaluation rubric, consistent with the system level review policies and guidelines detailed in this handbook. All USG annual faculty evaluations must utilize the following Likert scale:

1 – Does Not Meet Expectations
2 – Needs Improvement
3 – Meets Expectations
4 – Exceeds Expectations
5 – Exemplary

Noteworthy achievement as referenced in BOR Policy 8.3.7.3 is reflective of a 4 or 5 on the above Likert Scale. Deficient and unsatisfactory as referenced throughout this document is reflective of a 1 or a 2 on the above Likert Scale. Annually, each institution must submit information regarding faculty annual reviews and PTR review outcomes to the Board of Regents. The reporting guidelines, structure, and timelines will be disseminated by the USG Academic Chief Officer.

Training
The USG will develop and deliver system-wide professional development trainings and resources for academic administrators who supervise faculty. Professional development training sessions and resources will be posted on MomentumU@USG, the USG virtual professional development platform. Each institution is responsible for ensuring that academic administrators are properly trained for all levels of evaluation as outlined in the Board of Regents Policy Manual and procedures disseminated by the USG Chief Academic Officer. Each institution must develop a robust annual professional development plan for academic administrators and faculty to ensure adherence to Board Policy procedures outlined in this handbook. In addition, the institution is responsible to provide professional development to faculty who serve on tenure and post tenure review committees.

Auditing Institutional Plans and Processes
Periodically, the USG Division of Internal Audits will perform institutional audits of annual, pre-tenure, tenure, promotional and post tenure (PTR) policies and procedures, for compliance with Board of Regents policies. The institutional audit reports and identified issues will be shared with the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Chief Academic Officer, and the Board of Regents Committees on Internal Audit, Risk, and Compliance, and Academic Affairs.

While the Board of Regents has delegated authority for tenure decisions to institution presidents, if an institution is adjudged to be carrying out its faculty review process in an insufficiently rigorous manner the Board of Regents may move the authority to award tenure to the Board level until institutional processes have been remediated. (BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY)

Review Principles and Guidelines

Each institution should use the following Review Principles and Guidelines to develop their institution-specific evaluation systems. The institutional evaluation system must be approved by the USG Chief Academic Officer.

  • Campuses will create clear and transparent assessment criteria and rubrics for faculty performance in each assessed campus category. Evaluation and assessment criteria must align to the mission and values of the institution. Departments may further develop institutional assessment criteria and rubrics specific to their discipline.
  • Criteria should be developed for each stage of a faculty member’s career from untenured Assistant Professor, through various levels of promotion, to stages of tenured Full Professor. Analogous criteria should also be developed for faculty who serve outside the tenure structure. These criteria will provide sufficient guidance to assess whether a faculty member’s performance is appropriate to their stage of professional career development at their institution, college/school, and in their department.
  • The development of these criteria should reflect the involvement of the institution through its academic affairs organization, colleges, departments, faculties, and should be approved through the institution’s faculty governance processes and procedures.
  • 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.
  • Evaluation of the Student Success component will involve an assessment of the faculty member’s involvement in activities inside and outside the classroom that deepen student learning and engagement for all learners. These aspects may include effective advising and mentoring; undergraduate and graduate research; other forms of experiential learning; engagement in other high impact practices; the development of student success tools and curricular materials; strategies to improve student career success; involvement in faculty development activities; and other activities identified by the institution to deepen student learning. Examples include, but are not limited to, Centers for Teaching and Learning, Chancellor’s Learning Scholars, Faculty Learning Communities and MomentumU@USG.
  • Evaluation of Research and Scholarship will take place within the context and mission of their department at that institution, whether within the faculty member’s discipline area, or as part of their scholarship of teaching and learning.  
  • The institution will adjudge the Professional Service component by considering activities that include Institutional Service – such as various forms of active engagement, committee work, faculty senate activities, and major institution and/or system initiatives; Service to the Discipline – discipline-related service in local, regional, national, and international organizations; and community involvement.  

Annual Evaluation
Faculty are evaluated annually by their appropriate supervisor as defined by the institution against the minimum criteria listed in BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY and BoR POLICY 8.3.7 TENURE AND CRITERIA FOR TENURE . The annual evaluation will encompass teaching; undergraduate/graduate student success activities; research/scholarship/creative activity or academic achievement; professional service to the institution or community; and continuous professional growth appropriate to the institution’s sector and mission, college or school and department. Institutions must ensure that workload percentages for faculty roles and responsibilities are factored into the performance evaluation model in a consistent manner. The overall evaluation must indicate whether the faculty member is making satisfactory progress toward the next level of review appropriate to their rank, tenure status, and career stage as noted in the abovementioned Likert scale.

  • The faculty member is responsible for providing documentation and materials for the annual evaluation. The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s annual written evaluation and his/her progression towards achieving future milestones.
  • The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the annual written evaluation.
  • The faculty member will be given a specific period (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the annual written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.
  • The appropriate supervisor will acknowledge in writing the receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made as a result of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. The specific time period for this response is 10 working days from the faculty member’s rebuttal/response. This acknowledgement will also become a part of the official personnel records. Annual reviews are not subject to discretionary review.
  • If the performance in any of the categories is judged to be a 1 – Does Not Meet Expectations or a 2 – Needs Improvement, the faculty member must be provided with a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) to remediate their performance during the next year. The appropriate supervisor will develop the PRP in consultation with the faculty member. This will become part of the official personnel records.

Third Year Pre-Tenure Review (On Track Not Tenured)
Faculty who are employed on an annual tenure track contract will undergo a third-year pre-tenure review. Individual institutions will choose whether this review will serve in lieu of the annual evaluation or will be in addition to the annual evaluation. The purpose of the third-year pre-tenure 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. The institution is responsible for clearly identifying the policies and procedures for third year pre-tenure reviews. This process should at least include a review from the department chair, peers, college/school wide tenure committee (if used) and the Dean. The 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 (BoR POLICY 8.3.5.1 FACULTY).

  • The faculty member is responsible for providing documentation and materials for the third-year pre-tenure review, as outlined in the institutional guidelines.
  • The appropriate supervisor will discuss with the faculty member in a scheduled conference the content of that faculty member’s third year pre-tenure review. A written report of the faculty member’s progression towards achieving future milestones of tenure will be provided to the faculty member after the conference.
  • The faculty member will sign a statement to the effect that he/she has been apprised of the content of the third-year pre-tenure evaluation.
  • The faculty member will be given a specific period (e.g., 10 working days) to respond in writing to the third year written evaluation, with this response to be attached to the evaluation.
  • The appropriate supervisor will acknowledge in writing receipt of the response, noting changes, if any, in the annual written evaluation made because of either the conference or the faculty member’s written response. The specific time period for this response is 10 working days from the faculty member’s rebuttal/response. This acknowledgement will become a part of the official records and is not subject to discretionary review.
  • If the performance in any of the categories is judged to be not successful/not satisfactory the faculty member must be provided with a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). The appropriate supervisor will develop the PRP in consultation with the faculty member with feedback from any committee that participated in the third-year review. The PRP must be approved by the Dean of the academic unit. The faculty member will have one year to accomplish the goals/outcomes of the PRP. This will become part of the official personnel records.

4.7 Post-Tenure Review

(Last Modified August 10, 2023)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BoR POLICY 8.3.5.4, Post-Tenure Review

Post-Tenure Review
The post-tenure review process shall support the further career development of tenured faculty members as well as ensure accountability and continued strong performance from faculty members after they have achieved tenure. The primary purpose of the post-tenure review process is to assist faculty members with identifying opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential for contribution to the academic discipline, institution, and the institution’s mission. Post-tenure review is intended to provide a longer-term and broader perspective than is usually provided by an annual review. The review should be both retrospective and prospective, encouraging a careful look at possibilities for different emphases at different points of a faculty member’s career.

Timeline: All tenured faculty who have rank and tenure with an academic unit must undergo post-tenure review (PTR) five years after the award of tenure and subsequently every five years unless it is interrupted by a further review for promotion to a higher academic rank (Associate/Full Professor) or academic leadership promotion (e.g. department chair, Dean, Associate Provost). A tenured faculty member may voluntarily elect to go up for a post-tenure review before the five-year time limit. This enables a faculty member to take full advantage of the feedback and insight provided by their colleagues at a strategic moment in their career, rather than having to wait for the usual 5-year cycle. Early post-tenure reviews should include a review of the faculty member’s accomplishments since they were last evaluated for tenure or a previous post-tenure review, whichever was most recent. If the faculty member has a successful review, the next PTR will be five years from the voluntary PTR date. If the faculty member is unsuccessful, the 5-year PTR review date remains in place.

Areas of Evaluation: The evaluation must address the faculty’s accomplishments related to teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service. Annual reviews encompassing the previous five years for the 5-year span must be incorporated in the post-tenure review processes. Tenured faculty members are expected to document successive contributions to furthering the mission of the institution through their teaching, student success activities, scholarship/research, and service. Contributions should be dated from previous tenure and promotion milestones and encompass the previous 5-year period.

Outcomes & Consequences of Post Tenure Review
The results of a positive post-tenure review should be linked to recognition or reward. Faculty members who are performing at noteworthy levels should receive recognition for their achievements. Each institution will prescribe how the review results will be related to possible rewards such as formal recognition, merit pay, promotion, educational leave, etc.

In the event of a post-tenure review that does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the faculty member’s appropriate supervisor(s) and faculty member will work together to develop a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in consultation with the PTR committee based around the deficiencies found by the committee. Consistent with the developmental intent of the PTR, the PIP must be designed to assist the faculty member in achieving progress towards remedying the deficiencies identified in the post-tenure review. The PIP must contain clearly defined goals or outcomes, an outline of activities to be undertaken, a timetable, available resources and supports, and an agreed-upon monitoring strategy. The PIP’s goals or outcomes must be reasonable, achievable with the time frame, and reflect the essential duties of the faculty member. The PIP must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs. Formal meetings for assessing progress on the PIP should be scheduled no less than twice per semester during the fall and spring semesters. The institution should create appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal an unfavorable post-tenure review as outlined below.

The assessment of the PIP will take the place of that year’s annual review. Failure to successfully remediate the identified deficiencies, or failure to demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation, within one year subjects the faculty member to disciplinary actions up to and including, but not limited to, reallocation of effort, salary reduction, and tenure revocation and dismissal. The institution will follow appropriate due process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal the final assessment of their PIP and the resulting remedial actions as outlined below.

The appropriate supervisor must meet with each faculty member to discuss the results of PTR. Each faculty member must receive a letter documenting the summary of the findings of the PTR. In the event of an unsuccessful PTR the letter must also include next steps, due process rights, and the potential ramifications if the faculty member does not remediate or demonstrate substantive progress towards remediation in the areas identified as unsatisfactory. The faculty member can provide a written rebuttal that will be attached to the final document; however, no action is required by the appropriate supervisor.

Corrective Post-Tenure Review

A tenured faculty member evaluated as deficient in any one of the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and/or service for two consecutive annual evaluations will participate in a corrective post-tenure review. Note that the deficiency does not have to be in the same area; but could be a different area from one year to the next. This review will be initiated prior to the normally scheduled five-year review. The faculty member will follow the institution’s guidelines and procedures for post-tenure review. If the outcome of the Corrective Post-Tenure Review is successful, the faculty member will reset the post-tenure review clock. If the outcome of a corrective post tenure review does not meet expectations or needs improvement, the same process for an unsuccessful PTR will be followed. The institution should follow appropriate due-process mechanisms for a faculty member to appeal a corrective post-tenure review as outlined below.

Due Process Following an Unsuccessful Post-Tenure Review or an Unsuccessful Corrective Post-Tenure Review

If, after conducting a final review of appropriate materials and allowing the faculty member an opportunity to be heard at the conclusion of the Performance Improvement Plan, the department chair and dean determine that the faculty member has failed to make sufficient progress in performance as outlined in the Performance Improvement Plan (or has refused to engage reasonably in the process), the department chair and dean will propose appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies.

Upon request by the faculty member, the PTR committee will review the materials that attest to Performance Improvement Plan progress and the proposed remedial action and make their recommendation. If the faculty member does not request a review by the PTR committee, the Provost will make the final determination on remedial action. If the faculty member does want to request a review by the PTR committee, the faculty member has 10 calendar days from receiving the recommendations of the dean/dept. chair to request the PTR committee review. If received within 10 calendar days, the request will be granted.

The following due process will be followed for the PTR Committee review:

  1. The PTR committee will review the recommendation of the department chair and dean. The PTR committee may exercise its judgment as to whether an in-person hearing is necessary. The recommendation of the PTR committee may be based solely on a review of the record. The PTR committee will issue its recommendation to the Provost and the faculty member within 20 calendar days of the request for review by the faculty member.
  2. Within 5 calendar days of receiving the recommendation(s) from the PTR committee, the Provost shall send an official letter to the faculty member notifying him or her of the remedial action.

The Provost’s remedial action may include, but not be limited to, suspension of pay, salary reduction, revocation of tenure, and separation from employment. If the remedial action is separation from employment, and only in that case, the faculty member has the right to request a final faculty hearing for the purpose of confirming that due process was followed in reaching the decision of separation of employment. If the faculty member requests a formal hearing within 5 calendar days of receiving the Provost’s official letter, the Provost will grant that request.

The following procedures will be followed for the final faculty hearing:

  1. If the institution does not have a final dismissal hearing committee as a standing committee of its faculty’s legislative body, a PTR final dismissal faculty hearing should be formed within 5 calendar days of receiving the faculty member’s request and consist of not fewer than three, but not more than five, impartial faculty members appointed by the executive committee (or its equivalent) of the highest legislative body of the faculty, from among the members of the entire faculty of the institution. Members of the hearing committee may serve concurrently on other committees of the faculty. The hearing committee should elect a chair from its membership. The entire process of the hearing and written recommendation from the final hearing committee to the President must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date of the faculty member’s request for a hearing.
  2. The hearing committee will notify the faculty member recommended for dismissal in writing at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
  3. Prior to the hearing, the hearing committee will review all documentation relevant to the post-tenure review of the faculty member.
  4. During the hearing, the faculty member should have the opportunity to make a statement to the committee, respond to the documentation reviewed by the committee, and answer any questions from the committee
  5. The President and the faculty member shall be notified in writing of the recommendation of the hearing committee within 10 calendar days of the hearing, whether that recommendation be dismissal or any penalty less than dismissal, providing supporting reasons.
  6. The President may or may not follow the recommendation of the committee, but, within 10 calendar days of receiving the recommendation, the President should notify the faculty member and the hearing committee regarding the decision and the supporting reasons. The President should also notify the faculty member of the discretionary review process as provided for in the Board of Regents Policy: BoR POLICY 6.26 APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
  7. If the remedial action taken by the President is dismissal, the semester during which a final decision is issued will be the last semester of employment in the faculty member’s current role, with the President outlining the faculty assignments to be completed prior to the dismissal date.

Academic Administrators

Academic administrators who hold faculty rank and are tenured at the institution will receive an annual review by their appropriate supervisor and will undergo a comprehensive evaluation, including a 360° feedback assessment every five years. Each institution should specify the process and procedures for a comprehensive evaluation of academic administrators. It is intended that an academic administrator’s annual and comprehensive evaluation include a review of traditional faculty activities (teaching, student success, research/scholarship, and service) that align with the responsibilities of the administrator.

(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.)

Elements of the Performance Remediation Plan (PRP) and the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

There are two different plans for addressing faculty performance: a Performance Remediation Plan and a Performance Improvement Plan. For faculty who do not meet annual performance expectations a Performance Remediation Plan is put in place. The purpose of this plan is to scaffold faculty growth and development and strengthen tenure and promotion possibilities. The second, a Performance Improvement Plan, is developed subsequent to an unfavorable PTR or corrective PTR. The components of the PIP and the PRP plans must include the following:

  1. Clearly defined goals or outcomes,
  2. An outline of activities to be undertaken,
  3. A timetable,
  4. Available resources and supports,
  5. Expectations for improvement,
  6. Monitoring strategy

Performance Remediation Plan (PRP)
The Performance Remediation Plan is used to document faculty deficiencies based on the outcomes from the annual review. The purpose of the PRP is to enable the faculty member to correct unsatisfactory performance in some aspect of their roles or responsibilities. The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources, wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. Two meetings during the fall and during the spring must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, planned accomplishments for the upcoming quarter. After each meeting, the academic administrator should summarize the meeting and indicate if the faculty member is on track to complete the PRP. Consequences for failure to meet the expectations of the PRP must be stated at the conclusion of each meeting. Each institution should standardize their processes, procedures and forms across all academic units and provide professional development for appropriate personnel.

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
The Performance Improvement Plan is used to document deficiencies based on an unfavorable Post-Tenure Review. The plan must be approved by the Dean and submitted to the institution’s Office of Academic Affairs or Human Resources, wherever the permanent faculty files are housed. Two meetings during the fall and during the spring must be held to review progress, document additional needs/resources, planned accomplishments for the upcoming time period. After each meeting, the academic administrator should summarize the meeting and indicate whether the faculty member is on track to complete the PIP. At the conclusion of the academic year the faculty member’s progress will be determined by the department chair and dean after taking into account feedback from a committee of faculty colleagues. Each institution should standardize their processes, procedures and forms across all academic units and provide professional development for appropriate personnel.

If the faculty member successfully completes the performance improvement plan, then the faculty member’s next post-tenure review will take place on the regular five-year schedule.

If the faculty member fails to make sufficient progress in performance, then the institution shall take appropriate remedial action corresponding to the seriousness and nature of the faculty member’s deficiencies. The President will make the final determination on behalf of the institution regarding appropriate remedial action. An aggrieved faculty member may seek discretionary review of the institution’s final decision pursuant to the Board Policy on Applications for Discretionary Review.

(Note that while this section of the Handbook pertains to tenured faculty members, tenure-track faculty members will also be evaluated annually on the elements of teaching, student success activities, research/scholarship, and service, following the procedures described above. In the case of deficiency identified through an annual evaluation, they will be put on a Performance Remediation Plan (PRP). If there is deficiency over two consecutive annual evaluations, institutions will determine specific consequences ranging from being put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to correct deficiencies, to possible separation of employment. For non-tenured faculty members, 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, please see BOR Policy 8.3.4 Notice of Employment and Resignation.)

Interruptions to the Post-Tenure Review Timeline
Institutions should follow existing processes to allow faculty the opportunity to pause the post-tenure review timeline as are already in place at the institution.

Implementation Process and Timeline

Institutions are approaching the process to make changes to their institutional policies in a variety of ways. In order to support the various processes, the USG will have one submission deadline for all revisions with two status updates in April and in September:

Submission Deadlines Dates
Status Report on Changes to PTR and Annual Review Policies April 1, 2022
Status Report on Changes to PTR and Annual Review Policies September 1, 2022
Institutions submit updated PTR and Annual Review policies to USG Chief Academic Officer for approval No later than October 17, 2022*
USO staff review institutional submissions and provide feedback No later than November 18, 2022
Institutions take final PTR policies through the formal shared governance process November and December 2022
Institutional Policy Implementation
Annual Reviews The new annual review should be utilized during the first full cycle following its adoption. For example if an institution evaluates on a calendar year cycle, 2023 will be the first year the faculty member will be evaluated on the new standards. If the institution evaluates on the academic calendar, the next cycle will be AY2023-2024.
Post-Tenure Review No later than AY 2023-2024*
Reporting to the Board of Regents
Preliminary Report August 2022
Annual Review August 2023
PTR August 2024
Training and Development
Opportunities for institution collaboration/Q & A January 2022
Department Chairs, Deans, Academic leadership: 1) Using the new annual evaluation process for development, 2) Recognizing and eliminating bias in the annual review process. February and March 2022, January every year following
*We encourage institutions to send forward annual review and PTR plans as they are ready for USG review.
Note: Faculty who go up for post-tenure review during the first two years of implementation should be given flexibility based on the adoption of new expectations.


4.5.4 Guidelines for Awarding of Emeritus/Emerita Status

(Last Modified January 25, 2024)   Report a broken link

SOURCES:
BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY 2.11 TITLE OF EMERITUS OR EMERITA

Board of Regents Policy 2.11 Title of Emeritus or Emerita allows the President at his or her discretion, to confer the title of emeritus or emerita on any retired faculty member or administrative officer who, at the time of retirement, had ten years of honorable and distinguished University System of Georgia (USG) service.

Institutions must develop and publish their own guidelines for award of emeritus/emerita status. The Board of Regents policy specifies only that the retired faculty member must have “had ten or more years of honorable and distinguished service.” The following are expectations for institutions developing their guidelines for award of emeritus or emerita status.

• The conferral of emeritus/emerita status is considered a distinctive honor, not a right, and is not automatic.
• The criteria for awarding the honor of emeritus/emerita status must be clear.
• There must be a clear process for informing retirees of the requirements to apply for emeritus/emerita status.
• Information about conferral of emeritus/emerita status should be readily available on the institution’s website and in information generally provided to eligible persons planning for retirement.
• Emeritus/emerita status can be awarded to both retired faculty and administrators.
• Conferring of the emeritus/emerita title may be based on the candidate’s faculty or administrative rank at the time of retirement.
• Institutions must specify the institutional office or offices involved in the management of requests for emeritus/emerita status.
• Institutions must specify who initiates the request for emeritus status, all of the processes that must be followed to result in the president of the institution recommending awarding of emeritus/emerita status.
• The timetable to be followed in applying for emeritus/emerita status must be clearly specified.
• Institutions must establish a time limit for applying for and awarding emeritus/emerita status.
• While the Board of Regents policy specifies a minimum of “ten years of honorable and distinguished University System of Georgia (USG) service,” institutions must specify whether the service must be full-time, continuous leading up to retirement, and whether or not all or the ten years must have been served at the institution awarding emeritus/emerita status.
• Institutions may specify whether emeritus/emerita status is available to faculty and administrators in both tenured and non-tenured status.
• Institutions must specify the benefits, privileges and recognition associated with emeritus/emerita status at the institution (see below).
• Nothing in the institutional guidelines may usurp the authority of the president of the institution to manage emeritus/emerita appointments and privileges.

Benefits, Privileges, and Recognitions that may be Associated with Award of Emeritus/Emerita Status

The following is a list of possible benefits, privileges, and recognitions that may be associated with emeritus/emerita status. None of these are binding on institutions, and institutions are not restricted to the listed benefits, privileges and recognitions.

• Certificate showing emeritus/emerita award and rank
• Inclusion in faculty/administrator listing on institutional emeritus/emerita web pages and the catalog
• Emeritus/emerita institutional photo identification card
• Continued use of institutional email, contingent upon participation in the same cybersecurity trainings as active employees
• Use of institutional 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
• Eligibility to serve on graduate thesis or doctoral dissertation committees, project committees, or as non-voting members of institutional committees as appropriate.
• Continued use of institutional office space as appropriate when available
• Parking privileges
• Use of institutional fitness facilities at no charge
• Invitations to participate in public ceremonies of the institution
• Invitations to certain departmental, college, and institutional events
• Complimentary copies of institutional publications
• Ability to enroll and attend classes at no charge, subject to space availability and approval of the instructor and institution


↑ Top