BYLAWS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
These Bylaws
provide the basis for faculty participation in the educational, research and
service activities of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, consistent
with the WSU/AAUP Agreement.
The Departmental Faculty (henceforth, the
“Faculty”) includes all fully-affiliated faculty members having the
rank of instructor, lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor or
professor. The Faculty hold
regular meetings called by the Departmental Chair (henceforth, the
“Chair”). Special
meetings of the Faculty are held within ten working days of the receipt by the
Chair of requests from at least seven members of the Faculty. Faculty meetings
are chaired by the Chair and are run in accordance with Robert’s Rules of
Order. Emeritus faculty are
invited to attend and participate in all appropriate departmental activities,
but are not eligible to vote.
Faculty whose primary appointments are in another department are not
eligible to vote unless otherwise specified in the joint appointment agreement
between their primary departments and the Department of Mathematics and
Statistics.
The Faculty give advice and make recommendations
for establishing departmental policies and programs, consistent with the
WSU/AAUP Agreement. The Faculty
conduct much of their business through the committee structure outlined in
these Bylaws. In particular,
faculty appointments are handled by the Chair with the recommendation of the
Promotion and Tenure Committee and Faculty Search Committees as detailed
below. Certain matters may be
regularly delegated to departmental committees, with the committees reporting
back to the Faculty at Departmental Meetings. The Faculty retains the right to
review committee recommendations to the Chair, except those personnel actions
explicitly delegated by these Bylaws to the Steering Committee or Promotion and
Tenure Committee.
The Promotion and Tenure Committee consists of all
tenured faculty and the Chair as a non-voting member. The Committee fosters and evaluates faculty scholarship,
teaching, professional practice and service. The Committee is responsible for setting up annual
evaluation subcommittees for untenured faculty, upon appointment, to guide them
through the promotion and tenure process, to evaluate their record and report
to the full Committee. Members of
the Committee vote on all tenure cases but may not vote on recommendations for
promotion to a higher rank than their own. All Committee votes must take place at duly convened
meetings (announced in writing or by e-mail at least four working days in
advance). A quorum consists of
three-quarters of the Committee's eligible voters. Members must be present to vote, except no member may be
prevented from voting because of a conflicting regularly scheduled class or
official university travel (or as otherwise specified in Committee
procedures). Should a member of
the committee, present and eligible to vote, fail to vote, this shall be
construed as an abstention by that member. A two-thirds affirmative vote of those members voting (i.e.
([# yes votes]/[# of votes cast
(yes, no and abstention)]) ≥ 2/3) is necessary for a positive promotion
or tenure recommendation. For new
faculty appointed with tenure, a three-quarters affirmative vote of those
members voting (i.e. ([# yes votes]/[# of votes cast (yes, no and abstention)])
≥ 3/4) is necessary for a positive tenure recommendation.
Every January, the Promotion and Tenure Committee
will elect a full professor (other than the Departmental Chair) as Committee
chair. The Committee’s chair
is responsible for insuring that the required annual evaluation of progress
toward promotion and tenure is conducted of all untenured Bargaining Unit
Faculty assistant professors, and for associate professors, regarding their
advancement toward promotion and tenure. The Committee’s chair transmits
the Committee’s promotion or tenure recommendations to the College
Promotion and Tenure Committee.
An annual evaluation by the Promotion and Tenure Committee will assess each assistant professor’s progress towards tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor. An annual evaluation by the full professors on the Promotion and Tenure Committee will assess each associate professor’s progress toward promotion to the rank of professor, unless the associate professor requests that the evaluation be conducted once every three years.
Standing subcommittees of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, appointed in the Spring (for duties starting Fall) by the Committee chair with the recommendation of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, are (i) the Professional Development Subcommittee, responsible for reviewing and recommending applications for professional development leaves (sabbaticals) in accordance with the WSU/AAUP Agreement, and for overseeing the peer teaching evaluation process (see G. 1. c. Peer Evaluation of Teaching), and (ii) the Scholarship Subcommittee, responsible for evaluating those research grant proposals which need to be forwarded to the college, and for evaluating proposals for the Visiting Scholars Program. Other similar responsibilities may be delegated to these subcommittees as appropriate.
The departmental Steering Committee
consists of the Chair as a non-voting member, plus four tenured faculty members
and one untenured faculty member elected by the Faculty. At least one of the elected members must
be a full professor. The four
tenured faculty serve two-year, staggered, terms, so that two tenured faculty
are elected each year. The
untenured faculty member serves a one-year term. A faculty member who has served two, consecutive, full terms
on the Committee (untenured, tenured, or both) is not eligible for re-election
for a period of one year following the second term.
The Steering Committee makes
recommendations for committee appointments, including chairs of committees
(with the exception of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Statistics
Program Committee which is chaired by the Statistics Program Director),
professional travel allocations, and other administrative structures brought to
it by the Chair. Being a body
elected to represent the department, the Steering Committee functions as an
advisory committee to the Chair on the full range of departmental issues.
The Steering Committee will distribute an
agenda at least two working days prior to holding a meeting. When the Chair needs to call a Steering
Committee meeting with less than two days advanced notice, a list of topics
that were discussed at the meeting (to replace the otherwise required agenda)
shall be distributed.
The Steering Committee will elect one of
its members as secretary to distribute to the Faculty within five working days
a summary of all recommendations made by the committee to the Chair.
The other standing committees, appointed
by the Chair with the advice of the Steering Committee, are the Applied
Mathematics Program Committee, the Calculus Committee, the Colloquium
Committee, the Computing Advisory Committee, the Curriculum Committee, the
Graduate Committee, the Library Committee, the Mathematics Education Program
Committee, the Statistics Program Committee, and the Undergraduate
Committee. Each is charged with
making recommendations through the Faculty to the Chair concerning specific
aspects of the department’s activities. The Chair coordinates the
overlapping responsibilities of these committees.
The chair of each committee is
responsible for ensuring communications from that committee to the Chair as
well as to other committee chairs when activities overlap or are related.
The Applied Mathematics Program Committee oversees courses and undergraduate and graduate programs in applied mathematics. Programmatic changes recommended by this committee are subject to approval by the Undergraduate or Graduate Committee before being submitted to the Faculty for recommendation to the Chair.
The Calculus Committee oversees the calculus sequence and prepares common final examinations as needed.
3. Colloquium
Committee
The Colloquium Committee coordinates
departmental colloquia and invitations to off-campus speakers.
4. Computing
Advisory Committee
The Computing Advisory Committee monitors the hardware and software computing needs of the department’s faculty and staff, and makes recommendations to the Chair regarding expenditures of departmental and other funds to meet these needs.
5. Curriculum
Committee
The Curriculum Committee reviews those
aspects of the undergraduate mathematics and statistics courses that are
offered in large measure to meet the requirements of other departments’
or programs.
6. Graduate
Committee
The Graduate Committee reviews the
programs of study and the recruiting, advising and encouragement of graduate
students in Mathematics and Statistics.
It also recommends membership on the Graduate Faculty.
7. Library
Committee
The Library Committee advises the
University Libraries on the acquisition of mathematics and statistics materials
(monographs, serials, media, etc.)
8. Mathematics
Education Program Committee
The Mathematics Education Program Committee reviews all aspects of the department’s Mathematics Education program, including mathematics courses for Early and Middle Childhood Education majors. Faculty with appointments in the Departments of Mathematics and Statistics and/or Teacher Education, whose primary responsibility is mathematics education, are members of this committee. Programmatic changes recommended by this committee are subject to approval by the Undergraduate or Graduate Committee before being submitted to the Faculty for recommendation to the Chair
9. Undergraduate
Committee
The Undergraduate Committee oversees the programs of study and the recruiting, advising and encouragement of undergraduate students majoring or minoring in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics.
Faculty whose primary appointments are in statistics are delegated, through the Statistics Program Committee, to review, evaluate and recommend statistics programs and courses in coordination with other appropriate departmental committees as specified below.
1.
Statistics
Program Committee
The Statistics Program Committee concerns
itself with the development, needs, and course and programmatic changes in
statistics, including statistics service courses and undergraduate and graduate
programs in statistics. The
Committee is chaired by the Statistics Program Director, who is a Professor of
Statistics appointed by the Chair in consultation with the Committee, and who
also is responsible for coordinating the interactions of the statistics program
with the Statistical Consulting Center.
The Committee includes all statisticians having professorial rank and
the Director of the Statistical Consulting Center. Programmatic changes recommended by this committee are
subject to approval by the Undergraduate and/or Graduate Committees, and
likewise service course changes recommended by this committee are subject to
approval by the Curriculum Committee, before being submitted to the Faculty for
recommendation to the Chair.
2.
Statistical
Consulting Center
The Director of the Statistical Consulting Center is appointed by the Chair in consultation with the Statistics Program Committee and the Steering Committee, and with the approval of the Dean. The Director reports to the Chair. The Director is a member of the statistics faculty with the rank of associate professor or above. The policies and the organizational structure of the Statistical Consulting Center are formulated in consultation with the Statistics Program Committee and are subject to the approval of the Chair. Functions of the Statistical Consulting Center in support of the graduate program in statistics are coordinated with the Statistics Program Committee.
1.
Faculty Search Committees
When permission to fill a faculty position has been granted,
the Steering Committee will recommend the composition of a Search Committee for
the position. The Steering
Committee will then inform the Faculty of the composition of the Search
Committee.
Faculty will have opportunities to review
the files of all applicants and make their opinions known to members of the
Search Committee. Faculty will
also be provided with opportunities, should they so desire, to meet all
candidates brought to campus for interviews.
2. Advice
on Naming of Chairs
When a Departmental Chair search is
underway (either internal or external), a majority of search committee members
will be Bargaining Unit Faculty Members elected by the Bargaining Unit Faculty
in the department.
Faculty will have opportunities to review
the files of all applicants and make their opinions known to members of the
Search Committee. Faculty will
also be provided with opportunities, should they so desire, to meet all
candidates brought to campus for interviews.
The Faculty will provide the Dean with a
written recommendation for the naming of a Chair. This recommendation will include the faculty’s ranking
of possible candidates for Chair with a written reason for the ranking. Those candidates whom the faculty finds
unacceptable should be so indicated.
In addition, the Faculty may invite the Dean to a meeting to discuss the
candidates and the Faculty’s ranking of the candidates.
3.
Other
Committees
Faculty may establish other ad-hoc
committees, or recommend that the Chair do so, and the Chair may establish
other ad hoc committees, as are required for either short-term or continuing
tasks
Criteria
and Procedures for Annual Evaluation of Departmental Bargaining Unit Faculty
1. Introduction and Sources of Information
An annual evaluation of the Bargaining
Unit Faculty member will take place according to the procedures outlined in
this section.
a) Annual Activity Report
Each Bargaining Unit Faculty member will submit an annual activity report documenting professional activity in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service for the previous year; the annual activity report will list activities undertaken in a single calendar year. A Bargaining Unit Faculty member may include a statement and any relevant materials in the annual activity report to describe methods and activities used in teaching courses throughout the year, and likewise other evidence to further illustrate the record in teaching, scholarship, and service.
b) Student Evaluation of Teaching
Student evaluation of teaching will be done for each section taught by each Bargaining Unit Faculty member. The instrument used in this evaluation shall be the University Student Evaluation of Instruction form jointly agreed to by the university and the AAUP.
c) Peer Evaluation of Teaching
(i)
for untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty members
Each year, the Professional Development Subcommittee (PDS) of the Promotion and Tenure Committee will arrange for classes taught by all untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty members (except those who have been denied tenure in their final probationary year and are in their terminal year) to be visited by tenured Bargaining Unit Faculty members.
Each visiting faculty member shall prepare a written report and submit it to the PDS with a copy to the Department Chair. These reports together shall constitute the peer evaluation of teaching. In addition, they shall be used as noted in section G. d. and in the teaching portion of section H.
(ii) for all
Faculty members
The Chair may ask, or the
Steering Committee may recommend that the Chair ask, a tenured Bargaining Unit
faculty member to observe a faculty member in one or more classroom situations.
Members whose classes are to be observed will be given advance notice, but they
may or may not be told the dates on which the observations will occur.
Likewise, a faculty member
may request observations of his/her classroom activities by a tenured faculty
member. The member must provide the Chair with the names of at least three
persons willing to observe, one of whom will be chosen by the Chair. Requesting
members may or may not be told the dates on which the observations will occur.
Each faculty member
engaging in such a classroom observation shall prepare a written report and
submit it to the Department Chair and to the observed faculty member. The
Steering Committee (which shall have access to these reports) shall use all
such reports from a given calendar year to inform its recommendation to the
Chair regarding teaching performance for that year (see G. 1. d.).
The Chair shall use all such reports from a given calendar to inform his or her
evaluation scores in teaching (see G. 1. d.).
d) Chair and Steering Committee Review
Both the Chair and the Steering Committee will examine the current annual activity reports. The Chair will examine the student evaluations of teaching and the peer evaluation of teaching (when available as provided in G. 1. c.), access to both of which will also be provided to the Steering Committee. In addition, they will examine the previous annual activity report (for those faculty who have been with the department long enough) for the purpose of evaluating activities which take more than a year to complete, for crediting activities from previous years when there was a small merit raise, and for other explicitly stated reasons listed below.
The Steering Committee will make recommendations to the Chair regarding the performance of Bargaining Unit Faculty in teaching, scholarship, and service. Informed by these recommendations, the Chair will bring to the Steering Committee tentative, preliminary evaluation scores for each Bargaining Unit Faculty for discussion, following which the Chair will determine the actual evaluation scores.
The Chair will make available in the department office the evaluation scores in teaching, scholarship and service, by name, within five working days of having determined the scores.
2. Relative Weights for Teaching,
Scholarship and Service
For all Bargaining Unit Faculty the weights may vary according to the following criteria, with exceptions noted elsewhere in this document:
1. Weight for teaching must be between 35% and 50%
2. Weight for scholarship must be between 35% and 50%
3. Weight for service must be between 15% and 30%
4. Weights must sum to 100%
Weights will be assigned by the algorithm that maximizes the overall merit score and gives weights closest to the nominal weights of 40%, 40% and 20%. This system will apply to all Bargaining Unit Faculty in the department unless the chair assigns a different weighting to allow for one or more of the following:
a. unique work assignments that differ from those of other Bargaining Unit Faculty;
b. discipline pursuant to the contract; or
c. correction of a pattern of substandard performance extending more than one year, in which case the weights will be 40%, 40% and 20%.
A written explanation will be given to the Bargaining Unit Faculty member affected in any of these cases.
3. Criteria for Evaluation
In accordance with the WSU/AAUP
Agreement, in each category (teaching, scholarship, and service), a faculty
member will be assigned a score of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 by the Chair.
a)
Teaching
The score for teaching will reflect the
faculty member's effort for the period of the calendar year in which the teaching
was performed. Some faculty
members receive an atypical teaching load (e.g. sabbatical, administrative
responsibilities, AAUP service, overload, etc.). The teaching score will be
assigned based on what is expected for the level of teaching in which the
faculty member is engaged. A faculty member who has no teaching for the period
being evaluated (e.g. a sabbatical coinciding with the calendar year) will
normally have a weight of zero percent for teaching for that year.
i.
A score of
zero indicates major problems with teaching. For example, the faculty member
may fail to meet classes for no compelling reason, the faculty member is often
unprepared for teaching responsibilities, serious teaching problems exist as
verified from substantiated complaints from students, or the faculty member
fails to comply with written standards present in departmental syllabi for
conducting a course in such a way as to have severely detrimental consequences
for the quality of the course.
ii.
A score of
one indicates that the faculty member is minimally fulfilling teaching
responsibilities (meeting classes and evaluating student’s work for
assigning grades) but based on peer evaluations (when available as provided in
G. 1. c.) and comments written by students on the University Student
Evaluation of Instruction form, the faculty member is only moderately
successful in helping students learn course material.
iii.
A score of
2 indicates that the faculty member is doing an effective job teaching with no
apparent major problems as evidenced by peer evaluations (when available as provided in
G. 1. c.) and comments written by students on the University Student
Evaluation of Instruction form. The faculty member meets classes at assigned
times, holds regular office hours, provides students with feedback on progress,
states appropriate grading policies at the beginning of the course, and
generally conforms to the requirements of the WSU/AAUP Agreement.
iv.
To merit a
score of 3, the faculty member must satisfy the criteria for a score of 2. In
addition, the member must satisfy at least one of the following additional
criteria, or the equivalent.
a.
The member
is actively engaged in course development, course maintenance, and other
teaching activities found in G. 4. below.
b.
In nearly
all sections taught by the member, comments written by students on the
University Student Evaluation of Instruction form are highly favorable and
almost uniformly so.
v.
To merit a
score of 4, the faculty member must satisfy the criteria for a score of 2. In
addition, the faculty member must satisfy at least one of the following
additional criteria, or the equivalent.
a.
The member
satisfies both the criteria listed under iv. a-b above or satisfies
criterion iv. a with distinction.
b.
The member
has received a college-wide or university-wide teaching award.
b)
Scholarship
The scores for scholarship are based on a
list of scholarly activities listed in part 5 of this section. The Steering Committee and the Chair
will consider the quality of scholarly work in assigning merit scores. For example, the reputation of
journals, length of publications, and venues at which lectures are given, can
be used to assess quality.
Co-authorship is another factor the Steering Committee and the Chair
will use in assessing a member’s contribution. In evaluating the contribution of co-authors, it will be
assumed absent other information that co-authors share equally in the credit
for their work, and in that case will normally receive the same credit as does
a sole author.
i.
A score of
0 indicates little or no evidence of scholarly work in the last two years and
there is no evidence of work in progress at the time of evaluation.
ii.
A score of
1 indicates that the faculty member is pursuing scholarly activities but that
the scholarly work has not entered the publication (or equivalent)
process. For example, acceptable
evidence for this purpose is an item in the current annual activity report from
those under 5b, 5c, 5d, or 5e below, or giving a talk in a departmental research
seminar, or equivalent evidence provided by other aspects of the record
iii.
A score of
2 indicates evidence of on-going scholarly activity. An example of acceptable
evidence for this purpose is at least one item in the current annual activity
report under 5a, or equivalent evidence provided by other aspects of the
record.
iv.
A score of
3 indicates a very active ongoing research program as evidenced by several
activities from part 5. An example
of acceptable evidence for this purpose is several scholarly works in the
current annual activity report (items under 5a), in addition to giving talks at
conferences or other institutions, or equivalent. Another example is at least one paper under 5a in the
current annual activity report of very high quality, plus some other items from
5a, 5b, 5c, or 5d, in addition to giving talks at conferences or other
institutions, or equivalent.
v.
A score of
4 indicates a very successful ongoing research program. An example of
acceptable evidence for this purpose is several scholarly publications in the
current annual activity report under 5a, at least one of which is in a premier
journal, and in these publications, the faculty member must either be sole
author or must report playing a substantial role. The publication of a scholarly book in addition to other
scholarly activities may merit a score of four. Also, an external (neither WSU nor WSU Foundation) research
grant funded in which the faculty member is a Principal Investigator may
provide evidence for a score of extraordinary.
c)
Service
The score for service will reflect the faculty
member’s effort for the period of the calendar year in which the service
is expected.
i)
A score of
0 indicates that the faculty member has little or no evidence of service
performed for the department, college, university, or for her/his profession, at
a level necessary for a higher score.
ii)
A score of
1 indicates that the faculty member has a minimal level of departmental
activity consisting of attending department faculty meetings and serving on a
committee that rarely meets, or the equivalent
iii)
A score of
2 indicates that the faculty member is engaged in several service activities as
listed in section 6 and plays an active role in at least one – or the
equivalent. To merit a 2, an untenured faculty member is not expected to
perform service at the same level as a tenured member; for example, untenured
faculty are not expected to play a leadership role in service activities, nor
to be assigned to as many department committees as tenured members, nor to
participate in extra-departmental service.
iv)
A score of 3
indicates a very active service record. Faculty should have a substantial
involvement in many service activities from the list in section 6. However, if
a faculty member has been engaged in a very time consuming or critically
important service activity, then a rating of three may be warranted with only a
few service activities reported.
v)
A score of
4 indicates strong evidence of service resulting in major accomplishments for
the department, college, university, or the faculty member’s profession.
Some examples include serving as an editor to an appropriate journal, or being
elected to high office in a national or international professional
organization. Also, an extraordinary rating is justified for faculty members
who have been actively engaged in a number of service activities in a
leadership role from the list in section 6.
Teaching, Scholarly and
Service Activities to be used in the Annual Evaluation
Sections
4, 5 and 6 below list teaching, scholarly and service activities used in the
Annual Evaluation. Note that some
activities can be classified in more than one of the activity categories,
depending on the exact nature of the activity. Consequently, these have been listed in more than one
category below, and Bargaining Unit Faculty may choose to include these on
their annual activity reports in the category of their own choosing, with the
understanding that in no cases can an activity be listed more than once, or be
given credit more than once, in different categories on any annual activity
report.
4. Teaching Activities
a)
Course
coordination
b)
Course or
curriculum development
c)
Writing or
revising lab manuals, syllabi, or other course materials
d)
Assessment
e)
Developing
a new course
f)
Developing
a new major, minor, or concentration of study at Wright State University
g)
Developing
a new graduate program
h)
Serving on
comprehensive exam committees
i)
Serving as
a graduate program director
j)
Coaching
students for the Putnam exam (or other such academic competitions)
k)
Teaching a
challenging or time consuming course for the first time (or the first time in
years)
l)
Other
teaching-related activities not appropriately reported elsewhere
m)
College-wide
or university-wide teaching award
n)
Teaching
textbooks published (or chapters therein)
o)
Scholarly
work relating to teaching that has been accepted for publication
p)
Invited
talks about teaching
q)
Contributed
talks about teaching
r)
Teaching
grants submitted, pending, or funded
s)
Participation
in teaching related conferences, seminars, short courses, or workshops
t)
Supervising
research done by students, including, but not limited to:
·
Serving on
Master’s and Ph.D. committees
·
Serving as
thesis or graduate project advisor
u)
Advising
students
5. Scholarly Activities
In this section, the term research is to
be broadly interpreted to include the more general notion of scholarship.
This section lists several activities
that are considered as scholarly activities for the purpose of evaluating a
faculty member’s scholarship. With the exceptions noted, activities for which a faculty member
receives external compensation (not counting nominal honoraria or coverage of
expenses) shall not be credited to the member. One such exception is a royalty
from a publication (including but not limited to texts, lab manuals, software,
and instructional materials).
a)
Peer-reviewed
publications to include research papers, monographs, or books (or chapters in
books or articles therein). For each item not previously reported as published,
the annual activity report should list its history: dates of submissions,
revisions, acceptance, and publication. Credit will be given for an item accepted
for publication without need for further revision.
b)
Items
submitted for publication and technical reports
c)
Non-trivial,
substantive, revision of items under b) previously submitted.
d)
Publications
as in a) but not subject to peer review
e)
Invited
talks about research at conferences, professional meetings, other institutions,
or other departments at Wright State University
f)
Contributed
talks about research at conferences or other venues
g)
Research
grants submitted
h)
Research
grants funded
i)
Participation
in research seminars (either presenting a talk or organizing a seminar)
j)
Participation
in short courses, workshops, conferences and other meetings pertaining either
to research or to professional practice for mathematics educators
k)
Professional
practice for mathematics educators
·
Professional
development programs for in-service teachers, school administrators, and
university faculty (including but not limited to institutes, workshops,
seminars, classroom visitation)
·
Assessment
of effectiveness of professional development programs, including pre- and
post-test results, participant questionnaires, and other forms of soliciting
and analyzing feedback from participants.
·
Development
of curricula and materials
·
Development
and assessment of programs, courses, and instructional materials for
pre-service and in-service teachers.
·
Field-testing
curricular materials (original or otherwise) in school (pre-college),
undergraduate, and graduate classrooms.
l)
Other
research-related activities not appropriately reported elsewhere.
m)
Teaching
textbooks published (or chapters therein)
n)
Scholarly
work relating to teaching that has been accepted for publication
o)
Invited
talks about teaching
p)
Contributed
talks about teaching
q)
Teaching grants
submitted, pending, or funded
r)
Participation
in teaching related conferences, seminars, short courses, or workshops
s)
Supervising
research done by students, including, but not limited to:
·
Serving on
Master’s and Ph.D. committees
·
Serving as
thesis or graduate project advisor
t)
Refereeing
research publications, research grant proposals, etc.
u)
Serving as
a reviewer for Mathematical Reviews, or other such publications
6. Service Activities
a)
Professional
practice including consulting, reviewing curricular materials (e.g. texts),
serving as an expert witness.
b)
Supervising
or evaluating student teaching
c)
Holding an
office in, or providing service to, a professional organization, including the
AAUP.
d)
Department
committees (indicate if ordinary member or chair or other special role)
e)
College
committees (indicate if ordinary member or chair or other special role)
f)
University
committees (indicate if ordinary member or chair or other special role)
g)
Attending
commencement (see the WSU/AAUP Agreement)
h)
Faculty
governance posts (e.g., faculty senate, Faculty President, etc.)
i)
Evaluation
of peers (including adjuncts)
j)
Community
service (judge at a science fair, visiting scientist at a school, etc.)
k)
Recruiting
students
l)
Acting as a
resource for media or government agencies
m)
Organizing
department seminars
n)
Organizing
a conference or a session at a conference
o)
Editorial
board or similar duty for scholarly journals, conference proceedings, or the
equivalent.
p)
Other
service-related activities not appropriately reported elsewhere.
q)
Supervising
research done by students, including, but not limited to:
·
Serving on
Master’s and Ph.D. committees
·
Serving as
thesis or graduate project advisor
r)
Advising
students
7. Rebuttal
The WSU/AAUP Agreement permits a faculty
member who disagrees with the Chair’s evaluation to send a written response
to the Chair. This rebuttal shall
be stapled to the original evaluation, forwarded to all other entities which
receive a copy of the evaluation, and kept in the member’s personnel
file. Upon receiving this response
the Chair may reconsider her/his evaluation and inform the faculty member in
writing of the outcome within five working days. If the appeal results in a change of one or more scores,
then the Chair will inform the full Bargaining Unit Faculty that a change has
been made.
To merit promotion to the rank of
Associate Professor with Tenure, an Assistant Professor must, during the
probationary period, establish and maintain a quality research program,
demonstrate teaching effectiveness, and contribute to the operation of the
Department. A positive
recommendation for promotion and tenure by the Department Promotion and Tenure
Committee represents that body’s collective judgment that the candidate has
met these goals. The criteria
presented below will govern the deliberations of the Committee and form the
basis of their decision. Given the
diversity of the department, specific quantitative measures of quality
performance may vary among candidates.
Teaching and scholarship will be valued most highly; service is important but should not be
pursued to the detriment of teaching and scholarship.
The candidate must have established a
reliable record in meeting all teaching responsibilities. Current evaluations
(peer and student) should indicate overall effectiveness, with no indication of
current major problems.
A candidate’s case for promotion
and tenure may be strengthened by additional evidence of excellence in
teaching, such as teaching awards and letters from students, or contributions
related to the instructional program such as course and program development.
Each candidate for promotion and tenure
must produce a summary of his/her student evaluation numbers as part of the
formal promotion and tenure document.
The Professional Development Subcommittee of the Promotion and Tenure
Committee will arrange for classroom visits of teaching. Copies of all classroom visit reports
from the most recent calendar year shall be placed in the candidate’s
Promotion and Tenure document. The candidate may include additional
testimonials, solicited or unsolicited, student evaluation comments, or other
documents related to teaching, in the promotion and tenure document.
Candidates must present evidence of an
independent ongoing research/scholarship program at Wright State
University. It is expected, unless
otherwise stated in the initial contract, that the candidate will have at least
the equivalent of five quality peer-reviewed articles published, or accepted
for publication, since coming to Wright State and attributed to Wright State,
in appropriate journals. In cases
of joint authorship, where the candidate’s contribution to a
collaborative work was that of substantial co-author, the work will be counted
as the equivalent of a similar single-authored work. At their discretion, either the Committee or the candidate
may solicit additional letters from co-authors to establish the
candidate’s contribution to the co-authored work.
To assess quality the committee will
consider such factors as the reputation of the journals and the comments of
external reviewers. For candidates
in mathematics education, the publications may involve a broad range of
scholarship that reflects documented quality professional practice.
Documentation must be provided for articles accepted for publication. Acceptance indicates that no further
revisions are required.
The candidate should have regularly
attended conferences and presented talks to appropriate audiences. The candidate should also have submitted
at least two proposals for external funding, or received multi-year grant
support.
A candidate’s case may be
strengthened by a strong overall research record, superior evaluations by
external reviewers, significant funded research proposals, a record of invited
talks, a strong record of professional practice,* or comparable evidence of
high quality research/scholarship activity.
* Professional practice refers to efforts
by the faculty to use their expertise to help clients from within or outside the
university. Professional practice
should enhance the candidate’s overall research/scholarship program.
The candidate must provide the Promotion
and Tenure Committee copies of all publications and manuscripts listed on the
vita in the candidate’s promotion and tenure document.
During the probationary period, the
candidate is expected to attend faculty meetings and serve on at least one
committee per academic year.
Further contributions to the department, as well as any service to the college, the university, and the profession will be accorded appropriate credit (but cannot offset deficiencies in teaching or research)
The process for considering a candidate
for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure will begin no
later than the spring preceding the final probationary year at Wright
State. Annual evaluations by the
Promotion and Tenure Committee will assess the candidate’s progress
toward promotion. A candidate with
a clearly, well-established and sustained overall research record, as evidenced
by a superior publication record, significant funded research proposals, a
record of invited talks, or a strong record of professional practice (as
explained above), combined with strong outside letters and a superior teaching
record, may merit consideration for promotion and tenure during any year
preceding the final probationary year (a so-called “early
promotion”).
Promotion to the rank of Professor will
be granted for a cumulative record of strong performance in teaching,
research/scholarship, and service. A candidate’s entire work will be
evaluated. Promotion requires that
the candidate has assumed a responsible role in the functioning of the
university. A positive
recommendation for promotion by the subcommittee of the Departmental Promotion
and Tenure Committee composed of the full professors, represents that
body’s collective judgment that the candidate has met these goals. The criteria presented below will
govern the deliberations of this subcommittee and form the basis of their
decision.
The candidate must have demonstrated a
serious commitment to teaching.
Student evaluations should
indicate overall effectiveness.
Classroom visits should confirm that the candidate is an asset in the
classroom.
The candidate must also present evidence
of significant contributions to the instructional program, such as course
development, program development, involvement with the undergraduate program,
and work with graduate students.
Each candidate for promotion must produce
a summary of his/her student evaluation comments as part of the formal
promotion document. The Professional Development Subcommittee of the Promotion
and Tenure Committee will arrange for classroom visits, reports from which will
be placed in the candidate’s promotion document. The candidate may include additional
testimonials, solicited or unsolicited, or other documents related to teaching,
in the promotion document.
Candidates must have an active,
well-established, research/scholarship program, as evidenced by both recent
performance and the full scholarly record. A candidate will not be considered
for promotion unless the equivalent of a total record of at least 15 quality,
peer-reviewed, articles have been published, or accepted for publication
without need for further revision, with at least five of these since the
promotion to associate professor and at least 3 of these in the five years
preceding consideration for promotion. In cases of joint authorship, where the candidate’s
contribution to a collaborative work was that of a substantial co-author, the
work will be counted as the equivalent of a similar single-authored work. At their discretion, either the
Committee or the candidate may solicit additional letters from co-authors to
establish the candidate’s contribution to the co-authored work.
To assess the quality of the overall record, the subcommittee will consider such factors as the reputation of the journals, evidence of national or international recognition of the candidate’s work, and the comments of external reviewers. For candidates in mathematics education, the publications may involve a broad range of scholarship that reflects documented quality professional practice. Documentation must be provided for articles accepted for publication. Acceptance indicates that no further revisions are required. The many kinds of evidence of national or international recognition include, but are not limited to, an invitation to speak at a meeting of an appropriate professional organization, publication of a paper in a recognized, peer reviewed journal, and a letter of reference from a recognized expert.
The vita should indicate that the
candidate has continued to regularly attend conferences and present talks to
appropriate audiences. The candidate should have submitted at least two grant
proposals, or received multi-year funding, in the years following promotion to
the rank of associate professor.
Where appropriate, professional practice* may be used to provide
evidence of scholarly activity.
A case for promotion before the end of
six years in rank requires an exceptionally strong overall research record, as
evidenced by papers accepted in prestigious journals, a record of invited
talks, significant research/scholarship funding, or comparable indication of
consistent, very high quality research/scholarship activity.
* Professional practice refers to efforts
by the faculty to use their expertise to help clients from within or outside
the university. Professional
practice should enhance the candidate’s overall research/scholarship
program.
A candidate for promotion to the rank of
Professor must present evidence of significant and ongoing service
contributions to the Department, College or University. Examples include
chairing committees, contributing in a substantial way to the productive work
of committees, or assuming responsibility for significant professional activity
such as organizing a conference.
As required by the WSU/AAUP Agreement, an annual evaluation by the Promotion and Tenure Committee will assess each associate professor’s progress toward promotion to the rank of professor, in terms of the criteria described above, unless the individual requests that the evaluation be conducted once every three years
The full professors will normally review a candidate’s record in greater detail for promotion to the rank of Professor beginning four years after promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.
To be eligible for tenure, a faculty member already at the Associate Professor or Professor rank must demonstrate the level of accomplishments defined above for promotion to those respective ranks. The candidate may freely use evidence from Wright State and from previous positions, academic and non-academic where appropriate, to demonstrate ongoing effectiveness in teaching, scholarship, and service. All candidates must submit at a minimum a full curriculum vitae describing in detail their teaching, scholarship, service, and other relevant academic experiences.
An automatic review of these Bylaws
occurs the year following approval of a new AAUP/WSU Agreement.
Any proposed change or amendment to the
Bylaws must be communicated to the Faculty at least ten working days in advance
of meeting or voting on the amendment.
Prior to any formal vote by the
department’s Bargaining Unit Faculty to approve a proposed amendment to
the Bylaws, the Faculty will meet to discuss the proposed amendment. At this meeting, no substantive changes
to the text, other than editorial changes, may be made. After discussion, the
Faculty will cast an advisory vote on the amendment. Following the meeting and advisory vote, and regardless of
the outcome of the advisory vote, a mail ballot will be sent to the Bargaining
Unit Faculty containing (i) the
text of the amendment, (ii) the
outcome of the advisory vote, and (iii)
check-off spaces to allow approval or rejection of the amendment. This mail ballot constitutes the formal
vote by the Bargaining Unit Faculty.
Bargaining Unit Faculty will have at least three working days following
distribution of the ballots to return them. As required by the AAUP/WSU Agreement, majority approval by
the Bargaining Unit faculty is required for passage of the amendment.
********************* May
25, 2001 *********************