By-Laws

Florida State   /   Administrative   /   Bylaws

By-Laws
 
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
 
Florida State University

 

Approved March 26, 1975
Amended: March 20, 1991
Amended: January 11, 1993
November 15, 1995 Revision
Approved by Faculty Vote November 22, 1995
Approved and Reinstated by the Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, April 08, 1997
Amended & Approved by Faculty Vote: October 26, 2005
Amended & Approved by Faculty Vote: November 9, 2005
Amended & Approved by Faculty Vote: October 31, 2007
Amended and Approved By Faculty Vote on April 7, 2010
Amended and Approved By Faculty Vote on March 30, 2011
Amended and Approved by Faculty Vote on February 13, 2013
Amended and Approved by Faculty Vote on March 19, 2014
Amended and Approved by Faculty Vote on January 15, 2015
Approved by Faculty Vote September 12, 2018
Amended and Approved by Faculty Vote on April 24, 2019
Amended on October 2, 2019
Amended on November 1, 2019

 

 

 


 

By-Laws
Department of Chemistry
Florida State University

 

Departmental executive and administrative authority are vested in the Chair by the Florida State University Board of Trustees. In practice, the Chair is appointed by the Dean of Arts and Sciences (Dean) and executive authority is delegated by the Chair to the faculty, through a system of committees.

  1. Compliance Statement
    The departmental bylaws adhere to and are consistent with University policies found in the FSU Constitution, BOT-URR Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Faculty Handbook, and the annual Promotion and Tenure letter.
     
  2. Departmental Membership
    Members of the department include faculty, staff, graduate students and post-doctoral associates.
     
  3. Voting Membership
    Department faculty have voting rights associated with their specific category. Tenured and tenure-track Faculty (TTF) have full voting rights on all issues. Specialized faculty (SF) have voting rights pertaining to evaluation and promotion of Specialized Faculty. Teaching faculty have voting rights on all undergraduate curriculum and advising issues. Additional voting rights for specialized faculty or other department personnel can be granted or revoked by a two-thirds vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. When a voting member has a valid reason for missing a meeting and motions to be considered have been announced in advance, absentee votes may be accepted or solicited at the discretion of the Chair.
     
  4. Executive Functions
    1. Chair
      The detailed procedure for selection of the Departmental Chair nominee is given in Section VI.A. The Chair is appointed by the Dean to serve for an indefinite period. However, in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (The Department) Chair nominees are elected at three year intervals and normally serve no more than two consecutive terms. If at the end of a three year term of a Chair, the Departmental nominee is someone other than the incumbent Chair, the incumbent is expected to resign and the Departmental nominee is put forward. A chair nominee, whether external or internal, serves for a three-year term and may be reelected for a second three-year term. The Chair’s term begins on the first day of the fall term of the applicable year.
       
      The Chair has the responsibility for calling and presiding at faculty meetings, and for coordinating the executive functions of the Department, which include, but is not limited to, the following, each on an annual basis:

      • assignments of responsibilities for each faculty member;
      • appointing faculty mentors
      • providing in writing to each faculty member who has not achieved the highest rank possible an evaluation of progress toward promotion and, where applicable, an evaluation of progress toward tenure;
      • evaluating the calendar year performance of each faculty member, in accordance with the responsibilities specified in the faculty member’s annual assignment of responsibilities and taking into account the evaluation results of the Faculty Evaluation Committee;
      • making salary adjustment recommendations to the Dean, again taking into account the recommendations of the Faculty Evaluation Committee;
      • providing a detailed summary, at the end of each fiscal year, to the faculty on Departmental income and expenditures (excluding contracts and grants).
    2. Committees
      Executive functions are carried out by the Chair acting on recommendations from Departmental committees. The standing committees are: Executive (elected annually), Faculty Additions (elected annually for a 2-year term), Promotion and Tenure (elected annually for a 2-year term), the Curriculum Oversight Committee, Graduate Recruiting and Admissions (GRAC), Capital Resource and Space committee, and Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC). Each of the standing committees shall have at least five members. Additional (ad hoc) committees are established by the Chair as needed. Faculty can serve no more than two consecutive terms on the same committee. Unless otherwise stated, committee members are appointed annually by the Chair. The decisions of these committees are the responsibility of the faculty comprising the committee.
       
      The Executive Committee membership includes the Departmental Chair, the Associate Chair(s), one or two faculty members appointed by the Chair and three other representatives elected annually by the TTF. The Business Manager also serves in an advisory (nonvoting) capacity. This committee does not originate proposals, but has the responsibility of advising the Chair.
       
      The Faculty Additions Committee (FAC) is responsible for making recommendations to the Department on matters relating to faculty additions. The five members of the faculty additions committee are elected by TTF to serve for a 2-year term. Faculty additions procedures are described in Section VI.B.
       
      The Curriculum Oversight Committee is comprised of three members elected from each of the GAAC (Graduate) and UAAC (Undergraduate) committees. The oversight committee is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations on issues related to the curriculum at the graduate and undergraduate levels, ensuring no conflicts exist in the curricular plan. Changes in curriculum and degree requirements are outlined in Section VI.

      The Undergraduate Advising, Awards, and Curriculum Committee (UAAC) is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations on matters relating to the timely progress of undergraduate students majoring in the program, and serves as the selection committee for departmental awards and scholarships at the undergraduate level.
       
      The Graduate Advising, Awards, and Curriculum Committee (GAAC) is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations on matters relating to the timely progress of students in the graduate program, including monitoring thesis committees to ensure timely progression of students to degree and all graduate curricular matters.
       

      The Graduate Recruiting and Admissions Committee, (GRAC) is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations on matters relating to graduate student recruiting and admissions.
       
      The Capital Resources and Space Committee is responsible for evaluating and making recommendations on matters relating to long term resources such as major equipment, space, and allocation of shop time.
       
      The Promotion and Tenure Evaluation Committee (PTEC) is responsible for evaluating the tenure and/or promotion credentials of eligible faculty. This committee is charged with summarizing the case for tenure and/or promotion to the full Tenure and Promotion Committee. The committee is also responsible for yearly reporting to the department individual faculty progress towards their next promotion. The Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Committee comprises five tenured full professors and two tenured associate professors elected by all TTF on a two-year rotating basis and two Specialized Faculty members elected by the Specialized Faculty on a similar rotating basis. The Specialized faculty members will evaluate only other Specialized Faculty and not tenure-track faculty. For cases involving Tenure, the candidate’s Chair-appointed faculty mentor serves as an ad hoc member.
       
      The Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC). The FEC consists of 7 members of the department. The Committee composition one representative from the specialized faculty and six representatives from the TTE faculty. The membership will reflect the population of the department academic ranks and be selected on a rotating basis. A committee member can serve once every three years. The AFEC is responsible for annual evaluation of all faculty based on the information provided in the Evidence of Performance sheets. Annual faculty evaluation procedures will be conducted in compliance with policies and procedures in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement and with other modifications stipulated by the Vice-President for Faculty Development and Advancement (VPFDA). Tenure-track faculty will be evaluated, based on an approved form, as described in Appendix A. Specialized faculty will be evaluated based on an approved form following procedures described in Appendix B.
       
      The Promotion and Tenure Committee, consists of all faculty members. Promotion and/or Tenure of tenured / tenure earning faculty is conducted as follows: Full professors in promotion cases involving associate professors, and full and associate professors in cases involving assistant professors. Promotion of non-tenured faculty is conducted by all tenured / tenure earning faculty and specialized faculty at a rank above the current promotion level for the non-tenured faculty line (teaching or research). The duties of the Promotion and Tenure Committees are detailed in Section VI.C. and in the relevant sections of the University Faculty Handbook.
       
      The Department Chair serves as Chair of the Executive, Promotion and Tenure Committees, but is not a member of any other committee. With the exception of the elected committees (FAC and PTEC) which select their own Chairs, the Chair designates Chairs of committees.
       
      The committee meetings, except those of the Promotion and Tenure Committees and the Promotion and Tenure Evaluation Committee, are open to all Departmental faculty members. Committee Chairs are responsible for providing advance notice of committee meetings. A quorum for these meetings is defined in section VIII.A. of this document.
       

    3. Faculty Senator Election
      The Department will elect its faculty senator(s) and official alternate at such times as specified by the constitution of the Faculty Senate. The senator is responsible for attending Faculty Senate meetings and informing the Department of developments affecting the Department or its members.
       
  5. Administrative Functions
    Administrative functions are carried out by the Chair and by persons or committees designated by the Chair.
     
  6. Curriculum and Degree Requirements
    The curriculum and degree requirements have been established by the Department faculty in accordance with University regulations. The procedure for modifying a curriculum generally requires the faculty responsible for the courses to present its suggestions to the appropriate Curriculum sub-Committee (GAAC or UAAC). The process for approval begins in the sub-committee, requires review and approval by the oversight committee, presentation to the faculty by the committee, and a vote of the Department faculty for adoption or rejection of the proposed change, or for adoption of a modified plan.
     
    Individual requests by graduate students to modify their curriculum or degree requirements are presented to the Department faculty by a petition stating the reason for the request. Approval of each request, in so far as University regulations permit, requires majority agreement of the Graduate Advising, Awards, and Curriculum Committee.
     
    Individual requests by undergraduate students to modify their curriculum or degree requirements are made by petition to the Undergraduate Advising, Awards, and Curriculum Committee stating the reason for the request. Approval of each request, in so far as University regulations permit, requires majority agreement of the full committee.
     
  7. Procedures
    1. Selection of Chair
      The following procedure has been established for selection of the Departmental nominee.
       
      In the September preceding the end of the term of the Chair, a Canvassing Committee is selected at a faculty meeting. A minimum of four nominations for positions on the committee are received from the floor. A vote is then taken, each faculty member ranking three of the nominees 1, 2, 3, three being the highest. The three nominees receiving the highest score form the committee and select a committee chair from their membership. These three committee members and a fourth faculty member appointed by the Dean constitute the Canvassing Committee.
       
      The Canvassing Committee presents the option of an outside Chair to the faculty in October. At least a 2/3 vote of eligible faculty members is required in order to request the Dean’s permission to initiate an outside search. Procedures similar to those described in section VI.B. under faculty additions will be followed as appropriate when seeking an outside candidate.
       
      If the decision is to proceed with the selection of an internal candidate, then in November the Canvassing Committee provides each eligible faculty member with a ballot containing the names of all eligible members. Each voter selects three choices from this list and indicates the order of preference by designating the first choice as 3, the second choice as 2 and the third choice as 1. The Committee collects the ballots and after summing the weighted votes, determines whether the person receiving the largest total will accept nomination. It then similarly consults the person receiving the second largest vote and continues the process until it has three names to present to the Dean and the Department. A new canvass is held if the two persons receiving the highest totals decline nomination.
       
      The Canvassing Committee in presenting the three nominees to the Dean also represents to the Dean the views and concerns of the Department. The Committee in turn informs the Department of any concerns expressed by the Dean. Two weeks following the final report of the Canvassing Committee, at a faculty meeting called for this purpose on or about January 15th, eligible voting members select one of these three as Departmental nominee by secret ballot. Nominations from the floor are not accepted.
       
      Only tenured departmental faculty positions are eligible to be nominated. Departmental faculty holding tenured or tenure track faculty positions are eligible to vote for Chair. Voting faculty members who will be out of town during the voting may cast absentee ballots. Absentee ballots should list all candidates in order of preference and should be submitted in a sealed envelope to the Canvassing Committee. On each vote taken the Canvassing Committee will cast a proxy for the appropriate name on the list.
       
      A majority vote of eligible members is required to designate a Departmental nominee. In the event that no candidate receives a majority, a run-off is held between those two receiving the largest number of votes. The Departmental nominee assumes the duties of Chair, provided that mutually satisfactory negotiations have been completed between the Dean and the nominee. Failing agreement with the Dean the process is repeated expeditiously.
       
    2. Removal of Chair
      The Department may recommend to the Dean that a Chair be removed from office. Such action must be taken according to the following procedure:

      1. A petition calling for removal must be signed by a majority of the tenured persons eligible to vote for the Chair and submitted to the Dean;
         
      2. The Dean or his/her representative shall preside at a meeting of the faculty to consider the petition. The Chair will not attend. Two weeks notice shall be given for this meeting; and
         
      3. To be adopted, a motion for removal must be supported by 2/3 of the members eligible to vote for the Chair in a secret, mail ballot. This process shall be conducted by the Executive Committee (without the Chair) which shall report the vote to the faculty and to the Dean.
         
    3. Faculty Additions Procedures
      Faculty additions are initiated by four routes.

      1. The Faculty Additions Committee identifies the need for a faculty addition and makes a formal proposal to the Faculty that an addition be made. Such a proposal is normally made in the Spring semester to synchronize with annual approval and hiring cycles. Upon approval by the Faculty, the Chair approaches the Dean to make the specific request for an addition in that area.
         
      2. The Dean announces to the Chair the availability of a faculty position. The Chair in turn notifies the faculty. The Faculty Additions Committee makes a recommendation to the entire faculty. This recommendation includes area, scope and seniority and balances traditional areas of strength, emerging areas and fundamental teaching needs. The final decision is made by the faculty in a meeting called by the Chair.
         
        After a specific decision is approved, following either of the above routes, the Chair appoints an ad hoc search committee of five members representing the Department as broadly as possible. This committee initiates hiring activities, including the placement of advertisements and contacting colleagues. Dossiers, developed on all candidates, include letters of recommendation from those closely associated with the candidate and, for senior appointments, letters of evaluation or records of telephone conversations with people not directly associated with the candidate who are recognized authorities in the research field of the candidate. The search committee, in consultation with the Chair, is authorized to invite candidates to visit the university and present a seminar to the Department. Final decisions on the addition of a particular faculty member are made by the Department faculty in a meeting called by the Chair. Prior to this meeting, the dossiers of the candidates under consideration are available to the faculty for a period of at least a week.
         
      3. In unusual circumstances faculty additions can be made when a specific candidate has been identified or has requested consideration for a position in the Department through his/her own initiative. In such cases an initial evaluation of the candidate is made by the Faculty Additions Committee. If this committee determines that it is interested in the consideration of the candidate for a faculty appointment, it refers the matter to the Faculty. The Faculty Additions Committee considers the impact on the Department of such an addition and makes its recommendation to the faculty as to whether or not such a possibility should be pursued. If the decision is to proceed, the Chair advises the Dean of Arts and Sciences of the Department’s interest in such a position. If the Dean concurs, the Chair appoints an evaluation committee to investigate the credentials of the candidate for a faculty appointment. The evaluation committee will consist of five members representing the Department as broadly as possible The position is then advertised so that other candidates may also apply. The evaluation committee develops a dossier on the candidate, and any other candidates with comparable or superior qualifications, which shall include solicited letters of recommendation from persons who are recognized authorities in the research field(s) of the candidate(s) or are aware of other aspects of the candidates’ professional qualifications and experience. The evaluation committee then invites the candidate to present a seminar to the Department and to be interviewed by appropriate faculty. Following this process, the evaluation committee presents their recommendations to the faculty in a meeting called by the Chair and a final decision is reached by faculty vote in the usual manner.
         
      4. When faculty positions are generated by a Center, Institute or other entity (CIoE) in which the department has agreed to participate the following procedures apply. The process is initiated by the CIoE Search Committee of which one member is appointed by the Chair of the Department and acts as the Department’s representative. The CIoE Search Committee conducts its search and invites candidates with input from the Faculty Additions Committee coordinated by the Department’s representative in the CIoE Search Committee. The CioE Search Committee selects candidates for interviews with the CIoE and the Department. Input from the Department in this initial screening process is made by the Department’s representative. As interviews with specific candidates are arranged, the Department’s representative on the CIoE Search Committee informs the faculty of the visit and circulates the candidate’s file for review. Upon completion of the interview process the Faculty Additions Committee recommends a list of acceptable candidates to the Department. The final list of acceptable candidates is determined by a Departmental Faculty vote and is reported to the CIoE Search Committee by the Department’s representative on this committee. This information, which includes ranking of the acceptable candidates, is used by the CioE Search Committee in making its recommendation to the CIoE.
         
    4. Promotion and Tenure
      1. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
        Criteria for promotion and tenure of tenure-track faculty are in accordance with the University and College posted requirements. Additional Departmental criteria for consideration in promotion and tenure are outlined in Appendix A. Recommendations for promotion and/or tenure are initiated by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Promotion recommendations are received by the Promotion Committee, and tenure recommendations are received by the Tenure Committee (except that the Tenure Committee also functions as the Promotion Committee in cases involving promotion and tenure). The deadline for receipt of these recommendations shall be no later than three weeks prior to the deadline specified in the annual “Promotion and Tenure Process” memorandum from the Vice President for Faculty Development and Advancement (VPFDA).
         
        Each faculty candidate being considered for Promotion and Tenure or Promotion alone will prepare a dossier in compliance with the requirements established by the University as described in the Faculty Handbook, Section 5. The dossiers, prepared under the supervision of the Chair and formatted under the guidelines established by the VPFDA provide information concerning the faculty member’s performance in research, teaching, and service. Each dossier will meet the guidelines as stated in the annual “Promotion and Tenure” memorandum from the VPFDA and in addition will include a minimum of five letters of evaluation from persons who are recognized authorities in the research field under consideration and are not directly associated with that faculty member.
         
        The Promotion and Tenure Committees must complete their recommendation at least one week prior to the deadline set by the College of Arts and Sciences. Faculty are directed to the Faculty Handbook and the more specific memoranda from the VPFDA for general guidelines on preparation of binders of candidates for promotion and/or tenure.
         
      2. Promotion of Specialized Faculty
        Criteria and procedures for promotion of Specialized faculty will be in accordance with the University and College requirements for the specific Specialized faculty category, weighted according to the duties assigned them in their annual Assignment of Responsibility. To be promoted the faculty member must meet or exceed the Department’s expectations for performance specified in his or her assignments of responsibilities.
         
        Each faculty candidate being considered for Promotion will prepare a dossier in compliance with the requirements established by the University as described in the Faculty Handbook, Section 5. The dossiers, prepared under the supervision of the Chair and the Promotion and Tenure Committee and formatted under the guidelines established by the VPFDA provide information concerning the faculty member’s performance in research, teaching, and service. Each dossier will meet the guidelines as stated in the annual “Promotion and Tenure” memorandum from the VPFDA and in addition will include a minimum of two letters of evaluation from faculty members familiar with the area of the candidate’s responsibilities. These letters will be solicited according to policies in the current collective bargaining agreement. Teaching and Research faculty are expected to perform their assigned duties to the same expectations for tenure track faculty as outlined above. Instructional Specialists and Research Support faculty are expected to demonstrate excellence in their specific job duties. Criteria for promotion of Specialized Faculty are provided in Appendix B.
         
    5. Annual Faculty Evaluation
      1. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
        Criteria and procedures used in annual evaluation of Tenure track and Tenured faculty are described in Appendix C.
         
      2. Specialized Faculty
        Criteria and procedures used in annual evaluation of Specialized faculty are described in Appendix D.
         
        Faculty performance will be assessed using the following ratings:

        • Substantially Exceeds FSU’s High Expectations
        • Exceeds FSU’s High Expectations
        • Meets FSU’s High Expectations
        • Official Concern
        • Does Not Meet FSU’s High Expectations

        The department will use the following as guidelines for assessing each faculty members performance:
         

        • Meets FSU’s High Expectations describes an individual who demonstrates the requisite knowledge and skills in his/her field of specialty and completes assigned responsibilities in a manner that is both timely and consistent with the high expectations of the university.
        • Exceeds FSU’s high Expectations describes an individual who exceeds expectations during the evaluation period by virtue of demonstrating noted achievements in teaching, research, and service, which may include several of the following: high level of research/creative activity, professional recognitions, willingness to accept additional responsibilities, high level of commitment to serving students and the overall mission of the Department, involvement/leadership in professional associations, initiative in solving problems or developing new ideas. Examples of these criteria include, but are not limited to high profile presentations or publications including books and monographs, substantial service to the Department, University or professional community, an award for teaching, research or service.
        • Substantially Exceeds FSU’s High Expectations describes a faculty member who far exceeds performance expectations during the evaluation period and achieves an extraordinary accomplishment or recognition in teaching, research, and service, which may include several of the following: highly significant research or creative activities; demonstrated recognition of the individual by peers as an authority in his/her field; securing significant external funding; attaining significant national or international achievements, awards, and recognition.
        • Official Concern describes an individual who demonstrates the requisite knowledge and skills in his/her field of specialty but is not completing assigned responsibilities in a manner that is consistent with the high standards of the university.
        • Does Not Meet FSU’s High Expectations describes an individual who fails to demonstrate with consistency the knowledge, skills, or abilities required in his/her field of specialty and/or in completing assigned responsibilities.
    6. Merit Evaluation and Distribution
      Departmental policies for merit distribution shall be conducted in compliance with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement and the current Faculty Handbook. In years where the University has announced there will be a merit distribution, the Chair will compute a composite merit score for each faculty member from the average of the Faculty Evaluation Committee members’ ratings over the preceding three calendar years. There will not be a forced distribution of evaluation ratings. Merit criteria may not mandate a merit pay award for all members of the department.
       
  8. Definitions
    1. Quorum
      To transact business at a faculty meeting, a quorum must be present. For this purpose, a quorum is defined as a simple majority of the members holding voting rights in that meeting.
       
    2. Voting Majority
      Unless otherwise specifically stated, motions before the faculty as a whole or in committees require a simple majority of members present and voting to carry. If a more rigorous requirement is to be adopted for any type of motion, that more rigorous standard shall be necessary to establish the requirement.
       
  9. Amendments to the By-Laws
    The By-Laws may be amended or suspended at a faculty meeting by a majority vote of all the Departmental faculty members holding tenured or tenure-track positions. Proposed amendments must be circulated to all faculty eligible to vote at least two weeks prior to the faculty meeting at which they are to be voted upon. Similarly, notice of a motion to suspend the By-Laws in full or in part must be given to faculty eligible to vote at least two weeks prior to the faculty meeting at which it will be considered. With or without revisions, the by-laws must be revalidated by the voting members three years from the date on which they were previously adopted by the Department.
     
  10. Substantive Change Policy
    Faculty and staff members are expected to be familiar with and follow the Florida State University Substantive Change Policy as found on the university web site http://provost.fsu.edu/sacs.
     

 

 


 

Appendix A. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

Contributions of a faculty member in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry cover diverse areas of teaching, research and service. Although the period of time before promotion is considered in a given rank is normally five years, demonstrated merit, not years of service, shall be the guiding factor for tenure and/or promotion. Promotion is not automatic, nor is it regarded as guaranteed upon completion of a given term of service, satisfactory pre-tenure reviews, or any combination of annual evaluations rating that faculty as “Meets Expectations” or higher. Early promotion is possible where there is sufficient justification. Typically, an assistant professor is first considered simultaneously for promotion and tenure during the 6th year of service. All candidates for tenure and/or promotion are expected to prepare dossiers that address the criteria on teaching, scholarship and service outlined below, in accordance with guidelines presented in the Faculty Handbook and the annual Promotion and Tenure Guidelines and memoranda prepared by the VPFDA.
 
The Departmental criteria for awarding tenure are the same as those for promotion to the rank to which the candidate is being considered for promotion (or the rank held by the candidate if the candidate is not being considered for promotion). Tenure, however, is guaranteed neither by promotion nor by previous attainment of the rank of associate or full professor.

  1. Teaching
    Excellence in teaching is a high priority goal to which all faculty members are expected to strive and to expend significant efforts toward achieving. Faculty are expected to share in the responsibility of teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Candidates for tenure and promotion and for promotion at each level are expected to provide up-to-date and relevant lecturing in the classroom, in addition to excellent training for graduate students; and to set high standards in their scholarly activities as examples for their students. They are expected to be major professors for PhD students, and to have an established research program that includes participation by undergraduate and graduate students. Candidates for promotion to Full Professor are expected to have recruited and supervised PhD students to the completion of their degrees.
     
    Teaching shall be evaluated by a number of instruments including: student perception of teaching as evaluated in the currently accepted FSU document, in-class visitation(s) by members of the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee, evaluations from colleagues who have direct knowledge of the candidate’s teaching, and evaluations of syllabi and other class materials. In addition, the P&T committee will evaluate lists of graduate student committees served upon, and graduate students supervised during the relevant period. Mentoring activities will be evaluated including direction of projects resulting in publication by and with students, and placement of students in career positions. Publications of pedagogic articles and receipt of teaching awards will also be taken into account.
     
  2. Scholarship
    Faculty members are expected to establish research programs that will bring national and international recognition to the Department and to FSU. For promotion to Associate Professor and tenure, there must be clear evidence of a sustained research effort resulting in publication that has moved the candidate beyond his or her specific dissertation and postdoctoral topic. Candidates should have begun to have an impact on their fields, recognized at the national level, and should be clearly poised for continuing to do so. For promotion to Full Professor, there must be clear evidence that the candidate has contributed significantly to the scholarship of his or her field, recognized at the national and international level.
     
    The P&T Committee will evaluate the faculty member’s scholarship by assessing a number of factors including the extent to which candidates have published research results in refereed professional journals, including those considered to be top-tiered. Scholarly articles should be submitted regularly, and are expected to appear relatively consistently over a number of years. For all subfields, corresponding authorship is expected on a reasonable percentage of peer-reviewed papers. Although they do not carry the same weight as peer-reviewed articles in professional journals, books and articles or chapters that appear in edited works (and are sometimes subject to peer review) also count favorably in the evaluation of scholarship.
     
    Candidates will also be evaluated on the extent to which they have presented results of their work at national or international professional meetings, symposia, workshops, etc., as well as invitations received to present such scholarly reports at prestigious institutions and meetings.
     
    Candidates are required to demonstrate that they have received funding at a level adequate to support their research over a significant interval of time, preferably from sources that involve competitive peer review (e.g., the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education). The more competitive the proposal review, the greater the weight placed should funding be awarded. Finally, the Department places strong emphasis on the opinions regarding a candidate’s suitability for promotion and tenure that are provided by scholars from other institutions who are recognized as international experts in their fields.
     
  3. Service
    Faculty are expected to be good Departmental citizens and to share the load of committee assignments, academic advising, recruiting of graduate students and new faculty. Faculty should also be willing to represent the Department on committees or assignments at the College or University level. Service to the profession is another key component of service that brings recognition to the Department and to FSU. Such service may include journal editorships, serving on editorial boards, serving on review panels, holding office in professional organizations, and serving as peer reviewers for the evaluation of manuscripts, books, journal articles, and research proposals. Work in the community is also an important aspect of service, and may include membership and office in governmental or other advisory committees, and public relations activities such as presentations to civic and community organizations and public outreach through media. Direct service to the Department is expected of all faculty.

 

 

 


 

Appendix B. Criteria for Promotion of Specialized Faculty

Promotion in the Specialized faculty ranks is attained through meritorious performance of assigned duties in the faculty member’s present position. Promotion is not automatic, nor is it regarded as guaranteed upon completion of a given term of service or any combination of annual evaluations rating that faculty as “Meets Expectations” or higher. Promotion decisions will take into account the following factors weighted by the fraction of effort assigned in their annual Assignment of Responsibilities.

  1. Research Faculty. Criteria will include scholarly accomplishments of high quality appropriate to their field in the form of peer-reviewed scholarly publications, recognized standing in the discipline, and success in obtaining external grant support. In no case shall a Research Faculty member be promoted without having obtained significant external support for their research program.
     
  2. Research Support Faculty. Criteria will include performance in support of research as outlined in their annual Assignment of Responsibilities.
     
  3. Teaching Faculty. Criteria will include evidence of well-planned and –delivered lectures in multiple classes, summaries from Student Perception of Teaching forms, peer-evaluations of teaching, and participation in course / curriculum development.

 

 

 


 

Appendix C. Annual Evaluation: Tenure-track Faculty Evaluation

Research, teaching (graduate and undergraduate) and service are interrelated aspects of the role of a faculty member at the Florida State University. Faculty members may give different emphasis to the various aspects of their activity over the course of a thirty to forty year career. The policy outlined below provides a guide to the Chair in evaluating the effectiveness of each faculty member in carrying out his/her responsibilities to the Department.
 
Policy

  1. The annual Faculty Evaluation of Performance (EoP) Forms will be issued to the faculty by December 20th and collected by February 1st each year. The period covered in the form will include the prior two calendar years. All faculty members shall provide the information requested. Those not providing the requested information will be assigned an evaluation of “Does not meet FSUs high expectations” and will not be eligible for merit consideration that year.
     
  2. Faculty EoP forms will be evaluated by the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), composed as outlined in section IV.B. of the departmental by-laws.
     
  3. The FEC will rate the performance of each faculty excepting selves and spouses/partners. A score of 1(low) to 10 (high) will be given separately for teaching, research, and service. These scores will be used to determine an overall categorical score, e.g., “Meets”, “Exceeds”, etc.
     
    Research productivity will be measured by the number and quality of peer reviewed publications, of patents, of invited and contributed scholarly presentations, and of other appropriate scholarly works as reported in the EoP. It is expected that all faculty aggressively seek research funding.
     
    Teaching performance will be evaluated based on several factors that must be reported in the EoP. All faculty members with a teaching assignment will generate evaluations based on the currently approved FSU form. It will be a cause for concern for faculty members who consistently have relatively unsatisfactory rankings on these forms. The FEC will also consider each professor’s ability to successfully mentor graduate and undergraduate students in research. It is understood that successfully directing graduate students, undergraduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and research associates is considered part of the teaching assignment.
     
    Performance in service assignments will be based on material reported in the EoP form with the expectation that the faculty member participates effectively in the governance of the Department or in University programs with which they are affiliated.
     
  4. The FEC will complete its evaluation of all faculty EoP forms by March 15, in time for the information to be used by the Chair in completing the Annual Evaluation and Assignment of Responsibilities.
     
  5. The Chair will compute a composite merit score for each faculty member by a) weighting the average teaching, research and service ratings from the Faculty Evaluation Committee according to the assigned duties in the Assignment of Responsibility for that year, and b) considering the written input from the Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Committee. If a faculty member holds concurrent appointments in more than one Unit, written input from the Chair / Director of that Unit will also be considered. Evaluations for all faculty will contain a narrative explanation attached to the evaluation summary form. If a faculty member receives a “Does Not Meet FSU’s High Expectations” rating, he or she will receive a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as outlined in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
     
  6. The FEC will evaluate the Chair separately and communicate their evaluation to the Dean of Arts and Sciences.
     
  7. Faculty will receive a more thorough evaluation at the end of their 3rd year of service. This evaluation will be conducted by the Promotion and Tenure Committee to be in compliance with the procedures and requirements in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

 

 


 

Appendix D. Criteria and Procedures for Annual Evaluation of Specialized Faculty

  1. Procedures for annual evaluation of specialized faculty will adhere to the same processes and deadlines as those for tenure track faculty regarding completion of the EoP forms. EoP forms will be standardized for each category of specialized faculty and will reflect their specific job classifications. Faculty who do not provide the requested information will be assigned an evaluation of “Does not meet FSUs high expectations” and will not be eligible for merit consideration that year.
     
  2. Specialized faculty will be evaluated by the Faculty Evaluation Committee with a member of the Specialized faculty chosen by vote of the Specialized Faculty.
     
  3. The FEC will rate the performance of each specialized faculty excepting selves and spouses/partners. A score of 1(low) to 10 (high) will be given separately for teaching, research, and service. These scores will be used to determine an overall categorical score, e.g., “Meets”, “Exceeds”, etc.
     
    Research Faculty. Research productivity will be measured by the number and quality of peer reviewed publications, of patents, of invited and contributed scholarly presentations, and of other appropriate scholarly works as reported in the EoP. It is expected that all faculty aggressively seek research funding.
     
    Teaching Faculty. Teaching performance will be evaluated based on several factors that must be reported in the EoP. All faculty members with a teaching assignment will generate evaluations based on the currently approved FSU form. It will be a cause for concern for faculty members who consistently have relatively unsatisfactory rankings on these forms.
     
    Research Support Faculty. Performance in support of research will be evaluated based on evidence provided in the EoP in support of their assigned duties.
     
    For all Specialized Faculty, performance in service assignments will be based on material reported in the EoP form with the expectation that the faculty member participates effectively in the governance of the Department or in University programs with which they are affiliated.

     
  4. The FEC will complete its evaluation of all faculty EoP forms by March 15, in time for the information to be used by the Chair in completing the Annual Evaluation and Assignment of Responsibilities.
     
  5. The Chair will compute a composite merit score for each faculty member by multiplying the average of the FEC members’ ratings over the preceding two calendar years by the average AoR fraction and then taking the sum of the various components. The Chair will also average each faculty’s categorical scores from the FEC. The final categorical ranking will be communicated with each individual faculty meeting and will discuss possible avenues for improvement with the faculty member who falls below the Departmental average in any of their assigned duties.