A-Z Index  |  MCG Home  |  Site Search 

PDF Files for Printing
(How to print PDF files)

4.0   INSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

4.1  Introduction

The goal of the faculty development process of the Medical College of Georgia is to support the securing and maintaining of faculty members of the highest quality. This goal requires that the environment be conducive to developing faculty so that they may (1) contribute substantially to serving the institutions mission, and (2) achieve their own goals for professional satisfaction, promotion, and tenure.

4.2  Term of Contract and Renewal Notice

4.2.1  Term of contract
Non-tenured faculty and other non-tenured personnel employed under written contract shall be employed only for the term specified in the contract and subsequent or future employment, if any, shall result solely from a separate offer and acceptance requisite to execution of a new and distinct contract. (Board of Regents Minutes, 1964-5, pp.614-16; 1970-1, pp. 685-87; 1974-5, pp.304-13; 1980-81, p. 137).

4.2.2  Renewal of Contract
Consistent with the Board of Regents policy, and as stated in the Statutes of the Medical College of Georgia, notice of intention to renew or not to renew the contract of a non-tenured faculty member who has been awarded academic rank (Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Assistant Research Scientist, Research Scientist, Senior Research Scientist, Principal Research Scientist) shall be furnished, in writing, according to the following schedule.

1. At least three months before the date of termination of an initial one-year contract;
2. At least six months before the date of termination of second one-year contract;
3. At least nine months before the date of termination of a contract after two or more years of service in the institution.
4. Written notice of intention not to renew the contract precludes further process toward tenure.

4.3  General Guidelines for Annual Review

Within each School, procedures will be developed which meet the following general guidelines:

4.3.1  Department Level

1. At least annually, the Chairperson or the head of the appropriate academic unit and each individual faculty member will meet to discuss his/her faculty development goals and related progress. This annual performance evaluation should be scheduled to accommodate time requirements for decision-making and portfolio preparation of faculty who meet time-in-rank and/or time-in-service eligibility requirements, and who may wish to initiate the promotion and/or tenure process. It is important that all faculty understand that recommendations on promotion and/or tenure are advisory until the Board of Regents takes action.
2. Workloads should be assigned so that each faculty member is able to realize individual goals related to teaching, research/scholarly achievement, patient care/service, and/or other academic initiatives. The division of a faculty member's obligations between teaching, research, and service is left to the discretion of the Chair. (4.3.1b approved by Academic Council, 8/17/00)
3. Professional leave should be provided, and travel funds should be distributed equitably so as to facilitate faculty attendance at professional meetings or continuing education courses which are conducive to faculty growth and professional development.
4. In instances where areas of deficiency are noted at the annual review and further action required, the administrative head is responsible, in consultation with the faculty member, for establishing a Faculty Development Plan (FDP) directly related to the findings of the annual review. This includes identifying appropriate sources for such activities. The FDP shall be included with the report and forwarded to the appropriate administrative individual(s).

The Faculty Development Plan (FDP) will:

1. specify goals or outcomes which would help the faculty member overcome identified deficiencies;
2. outline the activities that can be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes;
3. set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes should be accomplished (which should not exceed one year); and,
4. indicate the criteria by which progress will be monitored.

The Chair and Dean will be responsible for financial arrangements associated with the FDP. If the nature or scope of the FDP is such that the individual cannot carry out other duties, the Chair and the Dean shall make other arrangements for these duties to be completed.

The FDP will be reviewed at the next annual review unless an earlier review is deemed appropriate.

A faculty member who disagrees with the FDP or any subsequent actions resulting from the evaluation process has the right to appeal as outlined below under 3.5.

4.3.2  School level

1. Within the school, specific guidelines and procedures for faculty development should be developed. These should conform to Regents policy (Board of Regents Policy Manual 803.10) and the MCG Statutes and should not abridge the academic freedom, rights, or responsibilities of faculty members.
2. The Department Chairman will guide faculty in meeting promotion/tenure requirements.
3. The Deans should facilitate the development of faculty by:

1. supporting Chairpersons in their faculty development responsibilities,
2. requiring annual faculty development progress reports for each faculty member from the Chairpersons,
3. developing and/or supporting intramural faculty development programs to enhance faculty skills related to education, research/scholarly achievement, patient care, and the seeking of extramural funds,
4. supporting, where possible, deserving requests for educational leave not requiring Regents approval, i.e. one semester.

4.4  General Guidelines for Post Tenure Review

4.4.1  All units are required to conduct a periodic, regularly scheduled review of tenured faculty to provide ongoing assessment of teaching, scholarly achievement and service activities of the individuals after they have been granted tenure. A Post-Tenure Development Plan (PTDP) will be developed if any performance areas are found to be deficient. Review will reside in the school. Each school within the university will develop and implement such a review process according to its organizational structure but consistent with the policies and procedures of the Medical College of Georgia and the Board of Regents.

4.4.2  The review process for an individual shall be conducted five years after the most recent promotion or personnel action, and reviews shall continue at five-year intervals unless interrupted by a further review for promotion.. It shall be completed no later than the end of that academic year. If an individual is on leave at the time of review he/she will be reviewed during the first academic year after his/her return.

1. All tenured faculty will be reviewed with the following exception: tenured faculty members with a primary administrative appointment (greater than 50% time commitment) at the level of Assistant Dean and above will not be subject to post-tenure review. If such an individual leaves that administrative position and returns to a primary academic position, he/she will then become subject to post-tenure review according to the guidelines within his/her school. The first review will occur at the end of three years of service in the primary academic appointment.
2. Review will be conducted by at least three tenured faculty members, all or a majority of whom are in the school of the individual being reviewed. A representative of the individuals department may be included as a non-voting member of the review committee.
3. The review will encompass teaching, research/scholarly achievement, and service. It will be based upon the faculty members current job description, faculty evaluations, Quarterly Personnel Reports, and the Faculty Activities Profiles. Documentation required will be the Educator’s Dossier as appropriate, the above named reports/forms as appropriate for the last five years, and a Curriculum Vitae. It should be noted that competence in all three areas is expected as is excellence in the area of primary activity. Lack of activity in an area for three years shall be deemed unsatisfactory. 
4. Results and recommendations of the review committee will be communicated in writing to both the individual faculty member and the Department Chair. The Chair and the committee will come to an agreement on the content of the review. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Dean will be consulted.
5. The Chair will then review the findings with the individual faculty member. The individual faculty member will be provided with a written copy of the report at least five working days prior to the meeting. The faculty member and the Chair will sign the document after review. The faculty member, if he/she desires, may prepare a written response. The Chair will then transmit the report and any response to the Dean of the school. In the case of reviews of Department Chairs the results will be communicated directly to the Dean. After review by the Dean, the report and any response will be communicated to the Provost with a recommendation for further action or no further action.

4.4.3  In instances where areas of deficiency are noted and further action is required, the Chair is responsible, in consultation with the faculty member and Dean, for establishing a PTDP directly related to the findings of the post-tenure review and identifying appropriate sources for completion of the PTDP. If a PTDP is required for a Chair, it will be developed by the Dean in consultation with the Chair. The PTDP shall be included with the report and forwarded to the Provost.

The Post-Tenure Development Plan (PTDP) will:

1. specify goals or outcomes which would help the faculty member overcome identified deficiencies;
2. outline specific activities which can be undertaken to achieve the goals or outcomes;
3. set appropriate times within which the goals or outcomes should be accomplished (which should not exceed three years); and
4. indicate the criteria by which progress will be monitored.

4.4.4  The Dean will be responsible for financial arrangements associated with the PTDP. If the nature or scope of the PTDP is such that the individual cannot carry out other duties, the Chair and the Dean shall make other arrangements for these duties to be completed.

4.4.5  At the end of the PTDP the individual shall be reviewed by a three-member review committee. If possible, the committee should have the same members who completed the original review (3.4.2.b) Results of the review will be communicated in writing to the Department Chair. The Chair and the committee will come to an agreement on the content of the review. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Dean will be consulted.

1. Upon satisfactory completion of the PTDP the individual shall continue with five year reviews, such time commencing with the next academic year after completion of the program.
2. If completion of the PTDP is deemed unsatisfactory by the review committee, the Chairperson and the Dean, this decision with a recommendation from the Chairperson and the Dean will be referred to the President for further action.

4.4.6  All records of reviews will be retained by the Dean’s office. At the end of each academic year the school must forward to the office of the Provost the names of the faculty members reviewed that year; the results; and the names of each member of the review committees.

4.4.7 A faculty member who disagrees with the results of a post-tenure review, a PTDP or any subsequent actions resulting from the review process has the right to appeal, as outlined below (3.5).

4.5  Evaluation/Review Appeals

4.5.1  The individual faculty member shall have an avenue for appeal of decisions made from annual review or post-tenure review, and/or for disagreement with a PTDP or any subsequent actions resulting from the evaluation process.

1. Decisions by an administrative head, Department Chairperson, or review committee may be appealed to the Dean within 10 days of written notification of a decision, action, or finalization of a PTDP.
2. Decisions by the Dean may be appealed to the a President within 10 days of written notification from the Dean. The President shall refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appeals Committee composed of the Chairman of the Faculty Appointment, Development, Promotion and Tenure Committee of the Academic Council and four corps of instruction members to be named by the President two of whom must be members of the Academic council, one of whom must be from the School of the appellant, and in the case of post-tenure review appeals, three of whom shall hold tenure. The appellant has the right to strike for cause any members of the ad hoc Appeals Committee. The President shall inform the Dean and the Provost that an appeal has been submitted and is under review. The findings and recommendations of the Appeals Committee shall be made to the President. The appellant will be notified of the President’s decision with copies to the Dean and Provost.
3. Decisions by the President may be appealed in writing to the Board of Regents within 20 days of notification of the Presidents action.

4.5.2  The procedures for appeal at each level shall be available through the department and through the Dean’s office.

4.6  Institutional Responsibilities

The institution should promote and foster faculty development through the provision of administrative support for programs aimed at quality improvement of faculty and by timely consideration and processing of deserving faculty requests for professional leave that require Regents approval.

4.7  Faculty Retraining

Institutional needs assessments and concomitant programmatic changes within schools and disciplines may at times require the reallocation of faculty positions. When this occurs, competent and productive faculty who may otherwise find their position in jeopardy may wish reassignment to other responsibilities which may require a period of retraining. Such faculty retraining is a complex issue at the individual as well as at the academic unit and institutional levels. It is recommended that each School form a board or committee, as necessary, to provide recommendations to the Dean or appropriate unit director on how to facilitate such retraining should retraining become desirable.

Approved by Academic Council
September 18, 1997

Revisions Approved by Academic Council
March 21, 2003

SECTION 5

© Medical College of Georgia
All rights reserved.

September 21, 2004