Department of Physics
Bylaws
Approved: May 21, 2003
Amended: January 15, 2004
Organization
and Procedure
Physics Department faculty
(here and elsewhere referring to all full-time faculty excluding the department
chair) participate in governance through providing advice and recommendations
in a Departmental Meeting of the faculty and through recommendations of departmental
committees. The standing department committees are: Faculty Development Committee,
Undergraduate Studies Committee, Graduate Studies Committee, Budget Committee,
and Engineering Physics Program Committee. The constitution and function
of these is described below. Ad Hoc committees may be appointed by the bargaining
unit faculty at a Department Meeting or by the department chair as needed.
Faculty Participation in Governance
The Departmental Meeting is
the venue in which the faculty considers academic policy and advises the
chair on its implementation. It also provides a forum for common discussion
of matters of departmental concern.
The department chair shall
call a meeting of the Physics Department faculty at least once a quarter
(except for the summer). A Departmental meeting may be called
by the chair of the department, the chair of a departmental committee (such
as Faculty Development Committee) or by petition of one-third of all department
full-time faculty members. The individual(s) who call a meeting will
announce the purpose of the meeting and call for any additional agenda items
from the department faculty before the meeting. Faculty requested items
will be added to the agenda or the agenda shall contain a standard item titled “Faculty
Issues” in which faculty may bring up issues of concern at the meeting. The
agenda and associated documents should be distributed to the faculty at least
one working day in advance of the meeting. The department chair may,
but need not, attend a faculty meeting called by others.
Whenever possible the recommendations
of the Department faculty will be made by unanimous consent. When a
vote is necessary, all full time faculty members except for the department
chair will have one vote at a departmental meeting. However, only BUFM may
vote on certain issues as indicated in the CBA. A quorum is defined
as half of the Department faculty to conduct business. Recommendations
of the faculty are made by a majority vote of those eligible to vote. Voting
will be open response unless a faculty member eligible to vote requests that
the voting for a particular issue use secret ballots.
Department Standing
Committees
Committee membership, unless
specifically addressed elsewhere in these bylaws, shall be named by the Physics
department chair and shall be determined through voluntary department faculty
participation where this is feasible. Effort shall be made to recruit
the faculty member who carries the least department and college service first,
and the faculty member who carries the most department service is recruited
last. Except for the Faculty Development Committee, the chair of the
Physics Department shall appoint the chairs of the departmental committees
with consideration given to balancing the service load of the department
faculty.
Department Undergraduate
Studies Committee. This
committee shall be composed of at least two departmental faculty members,
the department lab manager as a voting member, and the department chair
as a non-voting member. The committee is charged with reviewing the
course offerings of the department and recommending new course proposals,
modification of prescribed course content, elimination of courses, and
recruiting Physics majors. The committee reviews scholarship requests
and senior project proposals. This committee acts as the petition
committee for students. The recommendations of this committee
shall be reviewed by the full departmental faculty for a vote before a
final recommendation is made.
Graduate Studies Committee. This
committee shall be composed of the Physics Department chair as non-voting
member and at least 2 graduate faculty members from the department. The
committee is responsible for reviewing the graduate courses and curriculum. This
committee recruits graduate students, and recommends admission of any new
graduate student into one of the various degree programs offered by the department. The
committee chair is also charged with reviewing the progress of the department’s
graduate students once a year and presenting this report at a department
meeting.
Department Budget Committee. This
committee shall be composed of at least two tenured department faculty members
and the Physics Department chair as a non-voting member. This committee
is charged with reviewing the annual department budget and expenditures, and
advising the chair on prioritization of expenditures for the department. Based
on a previous year’s expenditures, the committee may recommend to the department
chair changes to amounts allocated to a particular item in the department’s
budget. The committee may obtain departmental financial information
by requesting copies of reports of departmental accounts.
Engineering Physics
Program Committee. This
committee consists of the department chair (non-voting) plus three faculty
members with applied physics interest including the Program Director, who
is named by the Physics department chair, plus equivalent appointees from
the Electrical Engineering Department. The chair of EE is the non-voting
chair of this committee. This committee is charged with curricular
oversight of the Engineering Physics Program, recommending approval and
providing oversight for the senior design projects of Engineering Physics
Majors, and recruiting Engineering Physics majors. The recommendations
of the committee go to the EE department chair unless they affect courses
offered by the Physics Department.
Other Procedures
Faculty Appointment
Physics Bargaining Unit
Faculty Members (BUFM) elect a numerical majority of the Search Committee
members from among Physics Department BUFM and makes recommendations of candidates
for on-site visits through the Search Committee to the Department chair. The
Department chair selects the other members of the search committee and appoints
its chair. Candidates are selected for an on-site visit by the department
chair. Available department faculty will have an opportunity to meet
each candidate selected for visit. The Department Faculty as a whole
will assess the qualifications and will rank the candidates in a secret ballot
at a department faculty meeting; such rankings will be summed by the search
committee so as to provide an overall faculty recommendation included with
the Search Committee’s recommendations. The faculty recommendation will include
the faculty’s ranking of candidates with a written reason for the ranking. Those
candidates whom the faculty find absolutely unacceptable at any level will
be so indicated.
Faculty Reappointment. Faculty
reappointment from an outside department to the Physics Department will only
occur after the recommendation of the departmental bargaining unit faculty
is sought in a secret ballot, to be taken at a departmental meeting. This
recommendation will be presented to the chair with the reason for the recommendation
given (derived from discussion prior to the vote).
Teaching Assignments
and Class Schedules, Including Summer and Overloads. Bargaining
Unit Faculty may decline summer or overload teaching. If a faculty
member is willing to teach a summer or overload course, he or she may indicate
such in writing in a timely fashion, identifying the course or courses
which he or she prefers to teach. If the number of bargaining unit
faculty who want to teach summer courses exceeds the number of courses
available, the chair shall institute a rotation system.
Faculty Involvement
in the Review of Chairs. Upon
the announcement of a review of the chair of the Department of Physics
by the Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics, the Department faculty
shall comply with the Dean's review policy and thereby assist the Dean
in his or her review. Upon conclusion of the review the Physics Department
FDC will survey the faculty on its view of the effectiveness of the review. Upon
receipt of a request from the Dean for comments on the performance of the
chair of the Physics Department, the chair of the FDC will remind the Physics
Department Faculty of the importance of feedback to assist the chair in
improved administration.
Faculty Development Committee
The Faculty Development
Committee (FDC) makes recommendations regarding promotions, tenure, professional
development leaves, leaves of absence and graduate faculty status. The Faculty
Development Committee makes recommendations to the Department chair for annual
evaluations, advises faculty members concerning their readiness for promotion
and/or tenure through cumulative progress reports and mentors new faculty. The
Committee consists of all tenured bargaining unit physics faculty of Associate
and Full Professorial rank. The department chair is a non voting member
of the FDC. A chair shall be elected by the committee in a meeting
held each year during the first week in April and shall elect a representative
to the College FDC.
Promotion and Tenure
Any faculty member of the
department considered for promotion and/or tenure shall submit the required
materials to the chair of the FDC. The chair of the FDC shall request
the necessary letters of reference from a list of referees agreed to by the
candidate and the FDC. Once the candidate has signed off on the document
as being complete and the letters of reference have been received, the FDC
shall discuss the matter and vote by secret ballot. A letter from the
committee will be prepared which summarizes its evaluation of the candidate’s
record, its recommendations and its reasoning which will explicitly address
the applicable criteria for promotion and tenure found in these bylaws. The
letter will also contain the final vote of the committee. The chair
of the Department will provide a separate letter of recommendation and will
not participate in the vote of the committee or in drafting the committee’s
letter. All members of the FDC will vote on all levels of promotion.
Faculty Dismissal of
Probationary Faculty
The chair or the Dean should
present his or her recommendation for dismissal of the bargaining unit faculty
to the FDC, including the reasoning behind this recommendation. The
faculty will be allowed full discussion of the dismissal case and will vote
by secret ballot on whether or not to recommend dismissal of the probationary
faculty member. The recommendation of the FDC must be written, with
the vote tallied and majority reasons expressed, and will allow for the expression
of minority opinions. The written recommendation will be sent to the
Dean.
Professional Development
Leave
Applications for Professional
Development Leave shall be evaluated by the FDC, and a priority score shall
be assigned if more than one candidate requests leave. The written
recommendations from the FDC as well as the chair shall be forwarded to the
dean.
Peer Evaluation of Teaching
The FDC will be responsible
for the peer evaluation of teaching for all bargaining unit faculty in the
department. Peer evaluation will normally consist of a review of submitted
course materials. For probationary faculty, peer evaluation will include
at least one classroom visit by a voting member of the FDC each calendar
year. If a review of these materials or unusual student complaints
indicates that there are significant problems in teaching, class visitation
(1 to 3 class sessions) by one or more members of the FDC will be arranged
by the FDC. A written report of the peer evaluation, including
any classroom visitation reports, will be reviewed by the FDC and then sent
to the BUFM and submitted to the department chair for the annual evaluation.
Cumulative Statement
of Progress
The annual FDC evaluation
is based on the faculty member’s Annual Report, the current CV, peer teaching
evaluations, and other pertinent material the FDC may request. All
FDC members assess each other independent of rank; the member under consideration
is recused from consideration of his/her own case. The evaluation
is to assess teaching, scholarship and service for the current year as a
recommendation to the chair and cumulatively as a statement of progress toward
promotion and/or tenure of the faculty member as indicated in the CBA. In
the case of deficiencies, the report needs to be specific and should outline
the committee’s expectations for a given performance area.
General Criteria for Promotion
Publications
Published research scholarship
must be sufficient to demonstrate the establishment of a sustained independent
research program. This must be demonstrated by publication of research
articles in peer reviewed, established and respected journals in science
or mathematics. Faculty hired as science educators may also publish
in pedagogical journals. Only publications that are published as from
WSU will be considered.
Journal articles count towards
promotion only if they are substantial and appear in archival, internationally
recognized, technical journals (or, for faculty hired as science educators,
pedagogical journals) that include a formal, rigorous review process. The
external reviewers will be asked to evaluate whether the candidate’s research
articles meet these criteria. Articles labeled as submitted may also
be included, and, if they are accepted for publication prior to the due date
for submitting P&T documents to the college, may be listed as in press
for final submission to the college.
External Review
External letters of evaluation
from individuals in the candidate’s area of professional expertise are required. Three
such letters are to be obtained from a list generated by the FDC. The
list can include, but need not be limited to, names suggested by the candidate. The
candidate and the FDC should agree on the final list of external reviewers. All
external letters must be forwarded with the promotion document. Reviewers
must be experts in the candidate’s field and cannot be or have been a mentor
or collaborator of the candidate
Grants and Contracts
External funding is expected
of all members of the faculty. Funding sufficient to establish and maintain
a productive and sustained research program must be obtained. The candidate
must have made sustained and continuing attempts to obtain funding while
not funded and to maintain funding when funded. External funding is
defined here to consist of any support from outside WSU which contributes
to and advances the candidate’s scholarly production. This can consist
of funding from national extramural funding agencies, business, government,
foundation or in-kind support such as equipment or software donated to the
candidate. Other funding of the candidate’s scholarship, such as summer
faculty programs or contracts providing monetary support for equipment and personnel,
even though not through WSU, are identifiable support for the candidate if
documented.
Teaching Criteria
Performance is acceptable
if the faculty member has met assigned teaching responsibilities (outside
of any unforeseen illness or emergency); if the faculty member’s recent student
and peer evaluations are mostly favorable; and if the faculty member provides
evidence of curriculum development, laboratory development, instructional
innovation, and student advising, demonstrates competence with classroom
and laboratory instruction, is well prepared for his or her teaching assignment,
communicates the material effectively, administers classrooms and laboratories
punctually and consistently, and is available to students.
While it may be difficult
to define acceptable teaching, the symptoms of unsatisfactory teaching tend
to be more obvious. These include (but are not limited to):
- Missed
classes (without informing the Department Chair or without adequate explanation)
- Missed
advising appointments (without adequate explanation)
- Persistent,
legitimate student complaints
- Erratic
classroom behavior
- Failure
to keep appropriate office hours or otherwise be available to students and
advisees
- Failure
to respond appropriately to reasonable student questions or complaints
- Irresponsible
or unprofessional conduct with students
Documented evidence of some
of these symptoms within two years of the candidate’s promotion is grounds
for denying promotion and/or tenure.
Service Criteria
An acceptable rating requires
that the candidate compile a record of regularly and effectively serving
the needs of the Department, College, or University through participation
in recruiting and retaining students, and through participation in Department,
College, and University committees as assigned or as opportunities arise. In
addition, an expected record includes some evidence of serving the professional
community.
- Criteria for
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
Candidates must meet both the general criteria
above, and specific criteria listed below.
- 6
journal articles published and extramural funding greater than $25,000.
Or
- 5
journal articles published and extramural funding greater than $50,000.
Or
- 4
journal articles published and extramural funding greater than $75,000.
Or
- 3
journal articles published and extramural funding greater than $300,000.
A publication record which does not meet these
criteria fails to document the establishment of an independent research program,
which is required. In the case of collaborative research, the
exact nature of involvement must be clearly specified and will be evaluated
by the external reviewers when possible to determine if the candidate played
a significant enough role in the inception, design and implementation of
the research for an article to count as one of those required. A publication
coauthored with one of the BUFM’s students is credited fully to that BUFM. A
similar determination will be made about how to count extramural funding
where the candidate is Co-PI but not the PI of a funded grant.
- Criteria for
Promotion to Professor
To be promoted to the rank of professor the individual’s
research must be characterized by continued productivity and development
of a national or international reputation. The individual also is expected
to have achieved a leadership position in terms of teaching and service,
the latter both internal and external to WSU.
In addition to journal publications
and external funding, the following measures of scholarship (or their equivalents)
indicate the establishment of a national or international reputation which
is expected for promotion to full professor.
- Book
on a topic in one’s field published by reputable publisher.
- Invited
presentation or paper at national or international meeting.
- Significant
book chapter in one’s discipline published by reputable publisher
- Editor
of a book in one’s discipline published by reputable publisher
- Reviewed
proceedings of national or international conferences
- Broadly
distributed and used teaching materials or texts.
- Organization
and participation in conferences and meetings.
Candidates are expected
to have achieved one or more of these since the previous promotion.
Candidates must have published 15 articles of
scholarship since the beginning of the probationary period as assistant professor,
with at least 10 since the previous promotion. During the 5 years before
the promotion, the candidate must published 3 or more articles, as indication
of a sufficiently sustained research program. The candidate must demonstrate
extramural support for his or her research at a minimum level of $100,000
in extramural funding awarded since the previous promotion.
In addition to satisfying
the general teaching criteria, the candidate must document 5 or more favorable
teaching achievements such as those below since the last promotion. In
addition the candidate must have been the major advisor for at least one
graduate thesis or dissertation. Favorable teaching achievements include:
- Making
major modifications to a course
- Effectively
supervising independent study projects and honors projects.
- Effectively
integrating new technologies into classroom instruction.
- Measurable
and documented student achievement beyond the norm
- Serving
as a major advisor for a completed master’s thesis
- Attracting
funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching.
- Participation
in college or university curricular development (designing and implementing
changes in the curriculum)
- The
equivalent
It is expected that each faculty member will participate
in service activities which include service on committees or in other leadership
positions at the department, college or university level. Other forms
of service to the university community and to the community at large are
also important and may include, among others:
- service
as editor, as associate editor or on the editorial board for national or
international journals;
- service
to state, national and international organizations as related to professional
responsibilities;
- solicited
reviews of manuscripts and research proposals;
- service
in professional associations;
- collaboration
with other institutions on teaching or research projects.
The candidate must document service to the college,
university or professional activity at a minimum average of 1 per year.
- Criteria
for Granting of Tenure to Faculty Appointed, With a Probationary
Period, at the Associate Professor Level
Teaching
The criteria
for teaching are the same as those described for promotion and tenure
to the Associate Professor level.
Scholarship
The
expectations for scholarship are the same as those described for promotion
and tenure at the Associate Professor level except that evidence of scholarship
and funding during the 5 years prior to application for tenure will be considered,
both during the probationary period at WSU and during previous appointments
as a tenure track faculty member or as an independently funded researcher. Publication
and funding pursuits during the probationary period at WSU must be sufficient
to demonstrate continuation of the research program
the candidate established prior to beginning at Wright
State.
The
candidate must meet the specific criteria listed below:
- 3
journal articles with WSU listed as the employer
OR
- 2
journal articles with WSU listed as the employer, and at least $10,000
of the required total of external funding must be awarded since coming
to WSU or transferred to WSU.
OR
- 1
journal article with WSU listed as the employer, and at least $20,000
of the required total of external funding must be awarded since coming
to WSU or transferred to WSU.
Service
The criteria
for service are the same as those described for promotion and tenure to the
Associate Professor level except that service activities during the past
5 years, both during the probationary period at WSU and during previous appointments,
will be considered. Emphasis
will be placed on the continuation of and/or the development of a strong
service record while at WSU
- Criteria
for Granting of Tenure to Faculty Appointed, With a Probationary
Period,
at the Full Professor Level
Teaching
The criteria
for teaching are the same as those described for promotion to the Professor
level.
Scholarship
The expectations
for scholarship are the same as those described for promotion at the Professor
level except that evidence of scholarship and funding will be considered,
both during the probationary period at WSU and during previous appointments
as a tenure track faculty member or as an independently funded researcher. Publication
and funding pursuits during the probationary period at WSU must be sufficient
to demonstrate continuation of the research program
the candidate established prior to beginning at Wright State. The candidate must publish at least one peer-reviewed
publication after coming to the department with WSU listed as the employer,
and at least $20,000 of the required total of external funding must be awarded
since coming to WSU or transferred to WSU.
Service
The criteria
for service are the same as those described for promotion to the Professor
level except that service activities, both during the probationary period
at WSU and during previous appointments, will be considered. Emphasis
will be placed on the continuation of and/or the development of a strong
service record while at WSU.
Annual Evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty
- General
Criteria
All Bargaining Unit faculty
members shall be evaluated annually by the department chair, utilizing the
annual report filled out by the faculty member and the summary recommendations
from the FDC. In the month of January each faculty member will fill
out an activity report and return the completed form to the department chair
and the FDC chair. The FDC or Chair may request additional information,
and faculty may include additional information.
The faculty members shall
be evaluated separately in teaching, scholarship and professional service. After
evaluation of each of the three areas, the department chair shall assign
a numerical rating between 0 and 4 as specified in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement: 0 = unsatisfactory, 1 = adequate, 2 = meritorious, 3 = outstanding
and 4 = extraordinary. The criteria used to arrive at these ratings
are to be uniformly applied for all evaluations and are listed below in section
2. The overall score is then calculated based on an optimization of
the three relative weighting factors to provide a maximum composite rating
for the individual faculty member. The relative weighting factors must
be constrained within the following ranges provided in the table below, unless
changed by the department chair for one of the reasons below. The department
chair shall convey the evaluation including the assigned scores and weights
to the faculty member in writing.
Normal
Weight Factor Ranges by BUFM Academic Rank
|
Weight Category
|
Assistant Professor
|
Associate Professor
|
Professor
|
|
Teaching:
|
0.4 – 0.5
|
0.3 – 0.6
|
0.3 – 0.6
|
|
Research:
|
0.4 – 0.5
|
0.3 – 0.6
|
0.3 – 0.6
|
|
Service:
|
0.0 – 0.2
|
0.1 – 0.4
|
0.1 – 0.4
|
The Department chair may assign other weights
in the case of:
- Unique
work assignments that differ from those of other faculty members;
- Discipline
pursuant to Article 14 of the CBA;
- Correction
of pattern of substandard performance extending more than one year;
- Specific
Criteria
If multiple measures are
required to achieve a certain level of performance, these measures may be
from the same category.
- Teaching
Factors used in rating teaching
performance include effectiveness of in-class teaching; teaching of workshops
and continuing education courses; student advising; serving as major advisor
for M.S. theses; serving on thesis committees; supervising senior projects,
honors and independent study projects; supervising post-doctoral fellows;
developing new courses and laboratories, integrating new technologies in
courses and attracting funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching.
Unsatisfactory
The faculty member does
not meet the requirements of an adequate level of teaching performance. Examples
of teaching problems include:
- The
faculty member is poorly prepared for classroom activities.
- The
faculty member does not return examinations and assignments in a timely manner,
does not manage the classroom well or is not available to students.
- On
a regular basis, the faculty member shows up late for class, dismisses class
early or does not show up for class at all.
- On
a regular basis, the faculty member is not available during office hours.
- Failure
to respond adequately to reasonable student questions or complaints related
to course or course material
- Irresponsible
or unprofessional conduct with students
Adequate
The faculty member in this
category performs satisfactorily based on student evaluations and peer review
of the relevant teaching materials. Performance at an adequate level of teaching
is typically demonstrated through:
- Meeting
with the class at scheduled times unless there are extenuating circumstances.
- Being
available during posted office hours unless there is an unavoidable conflict.
- Being
prepared for the classroom.
- Keeping
course content current.
- Mostly
positive student feedback
- Overall
positive assessment by peers.
Meritorious
The faculty member has met
the requirements for adequate performance, and also has achieved at least
two measures such as those listed below as evidence of meritorious teaching:
- Preparing
a course that the faculty member is teaching for the first time.
- Making
major modifications to a course.
- Serving
on master’s thesis or Ph.D. dissertation committee of student graduating
during that year.
- Effectively
supervising independent study projects and honors thesis students.
- Effectively
integrating new technologies into teaching.
- Effectively
supervising graduate student or post doc.
- Measurable
and documented student achievement beyond the norm.
- Overwhelmingly
positive student or peer feedback.
Outstanding
The faculty member has met
the requirements for meritorious performance, and also has achieved at least
one measure such as those listed below for outstanding teaching:
- Co-authoring
at least one journal article with students.
- Attracting
funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching.
- Serving
as a major advisor for a completed master’s thesis
Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate teaching activities that exceed requirements for outstanding.
- Scholarship
Factors
used in rating the scholarship performance include submission
of journal articles to peer-reviewed journals of
acknowledged stature; acceptance of submitted articles; acceptance
of proceedings, book chapters, technical reports, etc.; submission and award
of patents; invitation to give lectures,
conference presentations, seminars; submission of research proposals; funding
of research proposals; funding support for students,
post docs, or faculty in the faculty member’s research or teaching programs.
Unsatisfactory
The faculty member does
not meet the requirements of an adequate level of performance in scholarship
as outlined below.
Adequate
Research progress is
indicated by documenting at least one measure listed above
Meritorious
Research performance
in the meritorious category can be demonstrated by at least three measures
and must include one from below.
- Publication
of a journal paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
- Receiving
funding for support of faculty member’s research and/or teaching. (if not
already counted for teaching)
Outstanding
Research performance
in the outstanding category can be demonstrated by at least four measures
and must include two from below.
- Publication
of a journal paper in a peer-reviewed journal
- Receiving
funding for support of faculty members research and/or teaching. (if not
already counted for teaching)
Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate research activities that exceed expectations for outstanding.
- Service
Factors used in rating the
service performance include membership in department, college, program and
university committees; chairing a committee; participation in student recruitment
efforts; active participation in professional societies and their committees;
organization of scientific conference sessions, chairmanship of conference
sessions; review of scientific articles and grant proposals; editorship of
scientific journals; lectures to community groups, participation in state
level initiatives, providing service to K-12 community.
Unsatisfactory
There is little or no service
activity demonstrated by the faculty member in the annual activity report.
The faculty member does not meet the requirements of an adequate level of
performance.
Adequate
The faculty member
demonstrates all of the following in the area of service:
- Regular
attendance and participation at the department faculty meetings is expected.
- Fulfilling
individual responsibilities to the department, including effective service
on department committees
- Participation
in student advising and representative functions vital for the department
Meritorious
The faculty member has met
the requirements for adequate performance, and has achieved at least two
measures such as listed below as evidence for meritorious performance:
- Effectively
serving on college or university committees
- Effectively
chairing an active department committee
- Effectively
serving as an advisor for a student club
- Serving
as a session chair in a professional conference
- Holding
an office in a professional organization
- Reviewing
an article for a journal
- Serving
as a guest speaker for area business, government or community organization
- Providing
expertise to K-12 community
- Participate
in relevant state or national level initiatives
Outstanding
The faculty member
has met the requirements for meritorious performance, and has achieved
at least one measure such as those listed below as evidence for outstanding
performance:
- Effectively
serving as an editorial board member or associate editor for a professional
journal
- Effectively
serving as an officer in a professional conference
- Organizing
a conference workshop or panel for a professional conference
- Holding
positions of leadership in professional organizations
- Effectively
chairing a college or university committee
- The
equivalent
Extraordinary
The faculty member must
demonstrate service activities that exceed requirements for outstanding performance.
Extraordinary performance will be based on demonstration of leadership roles
in several service activities and the outcome of these activities.
|
