SEAS-Bylaws-Procedures-Passed-3.6.20

BYLAWS

OF THE

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

Approved by the Faculty of SEAS on April 5, 2018

Updated version approved March 6, 2020

The George Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science

Washington, D.C.

Approved by Pro

vost's Office - 6/2/2020

I. NAME

The name of the organization is the School of Engineering and Applied Science,

hereinafter referred to as SEAS. SEAS is a school of The George Washington University

(GWU).

II. PURPOSE OF THE BYLAWS

The purpose of these Bylaws is to articulate the rights and responsibilities of the Faculty

and the Administration in the shared governance of SEAS as well as the overarching

criteria used for the pursuit of SEAS’ mission. The BYLAWS are accompanied by

PROCEDURES OF THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

(herein referred to as “PROCEDURES,”) which specifies in greater detail the manner of

execution for particular matters such as voting, tenure, and promotion. These BYLAWS

supersede the SEAS Ordinances of 10-5-2012 and the SEAS Criteria for Appointment,

Promotion, and Tenure 12-8- 2011.

III. AMENDMENT OF THE BYLAWS

Amendments to these SEAS BYLAWS may be proposed to the SEAS Faculty, by the

Dean, by the Faculty through petition to the Dean by at least 10 voting Faculty

members, or by the SEAS Faculty Governance Committee. For adoption of a proposed

amendment to the SEAS BYLAWS, a favorable vote by the SEAS Faculty of two-thirds

of those eligible to vote shall be required. Voting will take place at either a regular SEAS

Faculty meeting or a Special SEAS Faculty meeting. Proposed amendments will be

circulated to the Faculty with the agenda for the meeting at least fourteen days in

advance of the meeting. Only regular SEAS faculty are eligible to vote on BYLAWS.

IV. SUBORDINATION OF THE BYLAWS

These SEAS BYLAWS are supplemental and subordinate to the letter and spirit of the

University Charter, the University Bylaws, The Faculty Organization Plan, and the

Faculty Code.

V. ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS

The Administrative Units of SEAS define and control the School’s educational, research

and service responsibilities, exercise authority over their appointments, salary and

promotion decisions, and manage its budgetary and fiscal affairs. The Administrative

Units of SEAS include the Academic Departments, the Office of the Dean, and other

Administrative Units.

V.1 The Academic Departments

SEAS is organized into six Academic Departments. The Department Chair is the elected

representative of the Faculty within her/his respective Department.

The academic departments of SEAS are:

The Department of Biomedical Engineering

The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The Department of Computer Science

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

The Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

The Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Other Departments within the School may be established after prior approval by the

Faculty of the School. Formal Divisions within a Department may be established subject

to prior approval by the Faculty of the directly affected Department(s), the Faculty of

SEAS, and the Dean of SEAS.

Each Academic Department has the following authority and responsibilities:

• Academic instruction and advising.

• Professional development of the Faculty.

• Recommendations relative to student admissions, financial aid, appeals, and

disciplinary actions.

• Administrative structure of the Department, including committees and

administrative assignments and positions.

• Each Department shall approve and make public a set of written Departmental

Bylaws and Procedures, consistent with the SEAS BYLAWS and PROCEDURES,

the University Bylaws, and the GW Faculty Code. At a minimum, the

Departmental Bylaws and Procedures shall include:

o Procedures and Criteria for periodically electing the Department Chair,

conducting a search for the Department Chair, and if necessary, removing

the Department Chair.

o Procedures and Criteria for recommendations for faculty appointment,

retention, tenure, promotion, sabbatical leave, and retirement.

o A description of the voting rights and procedures, as applicable to faculty

members of various categories.

o Recommending the addition, revision, or elimination of curricular

offerings within the department and insuring that instruction meeting the

quality standards of SEAS is maintained. This responsibility applies to on-

campus, off-campus, and on-line programs at the undergraduate and

graduate levels offered by the department.

o Participation in school-wide standing committees for recommending the

addition, revision, or elimination of curricular offerings within of school-

wide offerings and ensuring that instruction meeting the quality

standards of SEAS is maintained. This responsibility applies to on-

campus, off-campus, and on-line programs at the undergraduate and

graduate levels offered by the department.

V.2 Responsibilities of the Department Chair

The Department Chair, who is a member of the regular faculty of that Department, is

the elected representative of the faculty within her/his respective Department. At the

SEAS level, the Department Chair has the authority to represent the Department at the

SEAS Executive Committee or to assign her/his representative and nominate

department representatives for SEAS Standing Committees, as well as advocate for and

maintain the department budget. Departmental duties of the Department Chair and the

process for election shall be specified in the Departmental Bylaws.

V.3 Responsibilities of the Dean

A. The Dean is the Chief Administrative Officer of SEAS and is responsible for the

supervision and development of all of the resources of the School, the instructional and

research programs, the faculty and staff, the physical facilities in use by the School, and

the financial resources necessary for its programs.

B. The Dean normally presides at meetings of the School and, with the Faculty,

develops policies in keeping with the University-wide guidelines.

C. The Dean recommends appointments, promotions, and tenure based upon

recommendations of the School’s Departments, and, with the advice of the School-Wide

Personnel Committee established in accordance with Article IV Section D of the Faculty

Code, ensures that the principles stated in the Faculty Code and these BYLAWS and

PROCEDURES in regard to such actions are carried out.

D. With the assistance of the Departments, the Dean prepares annual and long-term

budgets. It is the Dean's responsibility to assume leadership of the Faculty in attracting

funds to the School for the development and operation of its facilities, programs, and

staff.

E. The Dean, in conjunction with the appropriate faculty committees and

administrative personnel, will keep the Faculty informed at least once each semester as

to the status of resources, budgets, and programs of the School and each Department.

F. The Dean may appoint Assistant Deans to carry out specific duties towards

school operations as appropriate. Associate Deans and Assistant Deans are selected as

described in Section V.5. Appointments to the position of Associate Dean or Assistant

Dean are subject to the final approval of the Provost.

G. The Dean may create advisory Administrative Committees to the Dean in order

to assist in her/his efforts for the benefit of SEAS. Such administrative committees may

include Faculty, staff, students, alumni, or outside persons as determined by the Dean,

and such committees may be constituted as standing administrative committees or ad

hoc administrative committees. However, the recommendations of such committees are

not to be construed as Faculty recommendations which can only emerge by faculty

representatives which are duly elected by either the SEAS Faculty as a whole, or by

their respective Department faculties, in accordance with the type of committee and as

further defined in the PROCEDURES OF SEAS.

V.4 Selection of the Dean

A Search Committee, consistent with Section C.2.(b)i.1 of the GW Procedures for

Implementing the Faculty Code, shall be established by the full time faculty. The Search

Committee will consist of one tenured faculty member from each Department elected

by the full time SEAS faculty, two tenured faculty members at large elected from and by

the full time SEAS faculty, the Provost or a representative appointed by the Provost,

and ordinarily one or two trustees appointed by the Chair of the Board of Trustees.

Only the elected members and the trustees may vote. At least a majority of the Search

Committee must be tenured faculty. The Search Committee will also include one or two

current students and one or two alumni as non-voting members, selected by the full-

time SEAS faculty after an open nomination process. The elected Faculty members of

the Search Committee shall elect a chair, who shall be one of the elected members and

hold a tenured appointment with the rank of Professor.

The Search Committee shall be charged with establishing criteria and procedures for the

selection of a Dean. The criteria and procedures shall be presented for approval by the

Faculty of SEAS and the Provost. Upon approval of the criteria and procedures by the

Faculty of SEAS and the Provost the Search Committee shall publicize the vacancy and

screen applicants.

All final candidates for the position of Dean shall be invited to the campus for

interviews which will include but not be limited to presentations by the candidate at

meetings of the Departmental and SEAS-wide faculty. The Department in which the

dean candidate seeks membership shall have the right to request appropriate

documentation, references, and presentations to assure that the candidate meets the

requirements for tenure and appointment at the sought after academic rank.

The Search Committee shall recommend ordinarily three candidates for the deanship in

a non- prioritized list to the President and Provost.

V.5 Associate Dean(s) and Assistant Dean(s)

There may be a number of Associate Deans and Assistant Deans who are members of

the regular SEAS faculty, whose duties are designated by the Dean. The Associate

Deans and Assistant Deans serve at the pleasure of the Dean and so long as they

maintain the confidence of the SEAS Faculty. There are no specific terms of office.

In making appointments, it is recommended, but not required, that the Dean convene

an Administrative Ad Hoc Committee, with representatives from each Department, to

solicit candidates, arrange interviews, obtain vision statements, and letters of

recommendation to assist the Dean in selecting the Associate Dean or Assistant Dean.

One of the Associate Deans shall be designated by the Dean to assume the duties of the

Dean, for a period not to exceed three months in the event of the absence or disability of

the Dean.

VI. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL

VI.1 Grades of Academic Personnel

The members of the Faculty of SEAS are the persons who are appointed in the School in

Grades of Academic Personnel, as specified in Section I of the Faculty Code of the

University.

(For general information on voting, see Procedures.)

VI.2 Membership, Rights and Responsibilities of the Faculty

A. The faculty members are individually responsible for conforming to the GW

Faculty Code, to all policies, rules, and regulations adopted by the University and/or

Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and to reasonable

administrative requirements of the University.

B. The Faculty shall develop and recommend to the Dean and the Provost all

matters relating to educational policy, and shall participate in the decisions relating to

the conduct of programs leading to School of Engineering and Applied Science degrees,

certificates, and other academic credentials.

C. The Faculty will normally delegate its responsibility for implementation of such

educational policies and the conduct of degree programs to the appropriate

Departments. Department faculties may recommend the addition or deletion of courses

within established degree programs to the Dean through the SEAS Academic Programs

and Standards Committee.

D. The Faculty shall elect representatives to the University Senate in accordance

with the provisions of the Faculty Organization Plan.

E. The Faculty shall create such standing and special committees as it deems

appropriate and shall determine the composition and method by which the committee

members shall be chosen, unless otherwise specified in the Faculty Code. Where

matters of direct interest to students are involved, the Faculty may also include student

members on its committees. If members of such committees are duly elected as

representatives of certain Departments or of SEAS as a whole, such committees will be

deemed to be Faculty Committees. Otherwise, recommendations from such committees

cannot be construed as Faculty recommendations.

F. The Faculty shall establish minimum standards of admissions. Individual

academic departments may choose to adopt higher standards for their department

approval.

VII. MEETINGS OF THE FACULTY

A. Regular meetings of the Faculty shall be scheduled at least once each

semester. Forty percent (40%) of the difference between the Faculty who are

eligible to vote and those who are on sabbatical or approved leave of absence

shall constitute a quorum. Abstentions from voting shall be noted.

(For general information on voting, see Procedures.)

B. Notice of regular Faculty meetings shall be distributed to all persons eligible to

attend at least fourteen days before each meeting. The agenda shall be distributed in the

same manner at least seven days before such a meeting.

C. Special meetings of the Faculty may be called by the President of the University,

the Provost, the Dean of SEAS (or in her/his absence by a designated Associate Dean of

SEAS), and the Executive Committee, or by written petition signed by at least ten (10)

members of the Faculty, specifying the proposed agenda. The notice and agenda of such

special meetings shall be distributed to all members of the Faculty at least seven days

before the meeting commences.

D. The Faculty may reconvene in an Executive Session as needed by a majority vote.

See Section IV of the Procedures for the voting procedure and eligibility to vote. An

Executive Session is restricted to voting members of the SEAS Faculty.

VIII. CONDUCT OF FACULTY MEETINGS

A. The procedure for all meetings conducted under these BYLAWS shall be

governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (most recent edition). The Dean

may appoint a parliamentarian.

B. The Dean or the Dean’s designate shall serve as the Chair of all regular or special

faculty meetings that are called by the Dean. Meetings called by members of the

Faculty, the Executive Committee, are chaired by a faculty member designated by the

group calling the meeting.

C. Attendance at faculty meetings is limited to members of the Faculty, the liaison

Representatives from other Schools and Colleges of the University, and visitors invited

by the convener. The Chair, as authorized by the Faculty, may extend the privilege of

the floor to persons other than members of the Faculty.

Faculty who are on sabbatical or who have made an approved teleconference request

may participate in meetings, will be included in the quorum, and can cast their vote.

More than one meeting site may be arranged and connected in a manner allowing

active participation in debate. An exception to this rule is that meetings concerning the

amendment of these BYLAWS AND PROCEDURES allow only those present at the

duly designated meeting sites to be included in the quorum and to vote. For meetings

not involving amendment of these BYLAWS AND PROCEDURES, requests for

teleconference participation may be approved by either a SEAS Department Chair or

the Dean’s Office depending on who is facilitating the teleconferencing.

D. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as abridging the right of the Faculty

to vote itself into executive session, a session consisting of voting members only, at any

time.

(For general information on voting, see PROCEDURES.)

E. A SEAS Faculty Meeting is the method by which matters come before the faculty.

However, except for personnel or organizational changes or amendments to the Bylaws

and Procedures, a matter may be brought to the SEAS Faculty for consideration by

electronic means or ballot box voting. A matter for electronic-mail or ballot box voting

may be brought forward as a motion only by a SEAS Department, the Executive

Committee, or a SEAS Standing Committee. This procedure requires at least five days

notification. If at least five members eligible to vote request the matter be debated, the

electronic-mail process is halted and the matter is brought to the next SEAS Faculty

Meeting.

(For general information on voting, see PROCEDURES.)

F. Written minutes of the Faculty Meetings, including the full text of matters voted

upon, shall be distributed by the Dean to the Faculty no later than one month after each

meeting.

IX. STANDING COMMITTEES

SEAS shall establish Standing Faculty Committees that act as a permanent entity of

communication between the Dean and the Faculty. Normally, each committee will have

one Faculty representative from each Department. The full committees will then be

elected by the SEAS Faculty at a regular or special SEAS Faculty Meeting. Committees

shall elect a chair and specify procedures for decision making. Normally, the Chairs

shall be responsible for calling meetings, which should occur at least once a semester.

The established Standing Faculty Committees of SEAS are:

• Executive Committee

• School-Wide Personnel Committee

• Academic Programs and Standards Committee

• Faculty Governance Committee

• SEAS Finance Committee

• Judicial Committee

Each Standing Committee shall elect a Chair from among the voting faculty members of

that Standing Committee. After its members are elected, each Committee will ensure

that initial terms of some members will be shorter to enable staggered terms in later

years. Each department may also elect an alternate representative to attend meetings in

the absence of the primary representative.

IX.1 SEAS Executive Committee

The members of the Executive Committee shall include the Dean and the Chair of each

Academic Department. The Dean shall preside at meetings of the Committee and may

invite non-voting members such as Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, and appropriate

staff members to participate.

In accordance with article IX.B of the Faculty Code and article V.4.D of these BYLAWS

and PROCEDURES, the Dean shall provide the Executive Committee a detailed

overview of the School’s operating budget, including revenue and expenditures, as

needed, but not less than annually before Departmental budget input is to be provided.

IX.2 School-Wide Personnel Committee

The School-Wide Personnel Committee (SWPC) is a committee composed of all tenured

faculty of SEAS. The SWPC reviews recommendations from the Departments for

tenure, appointments with tenure, and promotions for regular faculty. It issues its own

independent concurrence or nonconcurrence with the Departmental recommendation.

The SWPC considers recommendations for tenure, for promotion, and for appointments

with tenure in accordance with Section IV.D of the Faculty Code on each candidate

under consideration.

The SWPC meets, when a special meeting is convened by the Dean to consider one or

more cases. Prior to that meeting:

• The Department Chair submits to the SWPC all recommendations for tenure

and/or promotion of a candidate. Recommendations include appropriate

documentation as identified in the Faculty Code.

• The complete portfolio of a candidate for tenure, promotion, or appointment

with tenure, shall be available in the Office of the Dean for members of the SWPC

to review at least two weeks prior to a special meeting convened by the Dean to

consider the case.

• The SWPC may request and gather additional information, documentation, or

clarification regarding the departmental recommendations. However, the SWPC

shall consult with the chair of the relevant departmental committee before

considering any such supplemental materials that it may have received in

addition to a candidate’s portfolio, and shall provide copies of all such additional

materials to the chair of that committee. The departmental committee may

submit a written response to such additional materials, which will be included in

the record.

A Subcommittee of the SWPC shall exist, consisting of two members of rank of Full

Professor elected by each Department. Department Chairs are not eligible for

membership. The Subcommittee shall perform all duties as specified in Procedures V.3.

Each elected member shall normally serve for a term of two consecutive years. A

member may be re-elected after an interim period of at least one year, except when

faculty availability is limited, in which case a member may serve a second two-year

term. Should a department not be able to elect a member to the SWPC Subcommittee, a

member at large shall be elected by that department. The SWPC Subcommittee shall

annually elect a chair from among its members at its first meeting. See Procedures. In

the event of a nonconcurrence, the Chair of the Subcommittee ordinarily will represent

the SWPC in proceedings before the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

The SWPC shall state, in order to insure comparable quality and excellence across

SEAS, whether the candidate under consideration has met the relevant published

criteria and identify any compelling reasons for non-concurrence as defined in Section

IV.E of the Faculty Code.

IX.3 Academic Programs and Standards Committee

The Academic Programs and Standards Committee shall be comprised of two elected

representatives from each Department. Ex-officio voting members include the Associate

Dean for Academic Affairs, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Students. The

Committee will deal with matters relevant to the programs and curricula at the

undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as accreditation.

The Academic Programs and Standards Committee shall

• Advise on the establishment of new academic departments and academic

programs.

• Serve as a hearing committee under III.C of the Faculty Code for allegations of

arbitrary or capricious academic evaluation by students and make

recommendations for remedial actions to the Dean.

The Academic Programs and Standards Committee shall consider and make

recommendations to the Dean and Faculty of SEAS on the following issues:

• Proposals for new course offerings submitted by an Academic Department or an

ad hoc faculty committee for SEAS-wide offerings, including online and off-

campus courses.

• Proposals for new degree programs submitted by an Academic Department,

including online and off-campus degree programs.

• Proposals for the termination of any degree program.

• Proposals for significantly modifying existing degree programs or standards

thereof. Significant changes include but are not limited to modifying the number

of credit hours, or transitioning from in-classroom to online.

The Academic Programs and Standards Committee shall form subcommittees as

appropriate to separately consider online or off-campus courses or degree offerings

proposed by an Academic Department.

IX.4 Faculty Governance Committee

The SEAS Faculty Governance Committee shall be responsible for continuous

improvement of the SEAS BYLAWS and PROCEDURES for the Governance of SEAS.

They consider requests for amendments from the Faculty and will make

recommendations to the SEAS Faculty in the form of resolutions considered at regular

or special SEAS Faculty Meetings. In addition, the Faculty Governance Committee shall

review upon request of the Dean or Department governance documents of SEAS units

to insure compliance with the Faculty Code and SEAS governance documents.

IX.5 Faculty Finance Committee

The SEAS Faculty Finance Committee shall be responsible for reviewing SEAS Financial

documents and reporting to the faculty annually on the financial status of SEAS and

assist the Dean in employing financial information in the decision-making process.

IX.6 Faculty Judicial Committee

The SEAS Faculty Judicial Committee will consider and make preliminary

recommendations to the Dean on conflict of interest allegations, allegations of Faculty

misconduct, grievances, disputes, etc.

X. AD HOC COMMITTEES

X.1 Ad Hoc Administrative Committees

As described in Section V.3.G, the Dean is authorized to appoint an ad hoc

Administrative Committee as the need arises, to carry out a specific task. Once the

specific task is completed, the ad hoc Committee shall cease to exist.

X.2 Ad Hoc Faculty Committees

The Executive Committee, or by petition of 10 or more regular SEAS faculty, can create

a Faculty ad hoc committee to deal with extraordinary and pressing matters that might

arise. The composition of such committees will be determined according to need and

the members will be elected by the SEAS faculty.

XI. SEAS REPRESENTATION IN THE GW FACULTY SENATE

SEAS is represented in the University Faculty Senate in accordance with the University

Faculty Organization Plan. Eligibility, terms of service and election procedures are

specified in the University Faculty Organization Plan.

The Dean shall call a regular or special SEAS faculty meeting prior to March 15 to

conduct elections. Prior to a scheduled election, the Dean shall solicit nominations from

all members of the SEAS faculty. The Dean may request candidates to provide optional

brief statements of vision and experience. Additionally, nominations from all eligible

Faculty will be accepted from the floor or by petition. Elected members must be

members of the regular faculty with tenure when taking office.

PROCEDURES OF

THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

The Procedures of the School of Engineering & Applied Science (SEAS) are an

accompanying document to the SEAS Bylaws. Whereas the Bylaws specify

organization, rights and responsibilities, the Procedures specify the manner of

execution for particular matters such as voting, tenure and promotion. Hereinafter, all

references to distribution or notification shall be interpreted as occurring in written

form, either electronically or on paper.

II. AMENDMENT OF THE PROCEDURES

Amendments to these Procedures may be proposed to the SEAS Faculty by the Dean,

by the Faculty through petition to the Dean by at least 10 voting Faculty members, or by

the SEAS Bylaws standing Committee. For adoption of a proposed amendment to the

Procedures, see Section IV of these Procedures. Voting will take place at either a

regular SEAS Faculty meeting or a Special SEAS Faculty meeting. Proposed

amendments will be distributed to the Faculty with the agenda for the meeting at least

two weeks in advance of the meeting. Adoption of a proposed amendment to the

Procedures requires a simple majority of Faculty eligible to vote.

III. SUBORDINATION OF THE PROCEDURES

These SEAS Procedures are supplemental and subordinate to the letter and spirit of the

University Charter, the University Bylaws, the Faculty Code and the SEAS Bylaws, in

that order.

IV. PROCEDURES! REGARDING VOTING

1. Quorum. The quorum required to hold a vote is the same as that for holding a SEAS

meeting (Bylaws Section VII.A): 40% of the difference between the Faculty who are

eligible to vote and those who are on sabbatical or approved leave of absence,

constitute a quorum.

2. Eligibility. Only regular SEAS Faculty may vote on all matters that come before the

Faculty. Non-tenure track faculty, however, may not vote on personnel matters.

Specialized Faculty, who are recommended annually by vote of their Department

Faculty Personnel Committees in anticipation of contributions to the academic

programs of the School, may vote at SEAS faculty meetings, except in those matters

reserved to regular members of the Faculty by the Faculty Code.

3. Two means are used by the SEAS faculty to decide matters by vote:

a. Real-time. For certain matters (specified in Procedures IV.4), voting is

required to be conducted in real-time. In these situations, voting can occur (1)

in-person: by show of hands or by paper ballot, or (2) remotely: by electronic

means (real-time) by eligible faculty participating remotely in the meeting. In

both situations, votes will be received and tabulated by a person designated

by the presiding faculty member. No proxy or absentee ballots are permitted.

b. Non-real-time. On issues that do not require a meeting, voting may be

conducted electronically. The quorum, as determined by the number of

votes, required is the same as for an in-person meeting.

4. Bringing matters for voting. The Dean, Associate and Assistant Deans, or established

faculty committees may bring matters before the faculty for a vote. The following

matters must be decided by real-time votes: personnel matters, changes to bylaws,

election of members of the Faculty Senate, and major issues related to degree

programs. Notice to the faculty must be distributed at least five days in advance of

the vote. If, prior to the vote, five or more eligible faculty voters object to a non-real-

time vote, the matter shall be treated as a real-time issue and deferred to a faculty

meeting.

5. Ballot secrecy. A secret ballot is required for all personnel actions. On all other

matters, a secret ballot will be held if any faculty member eligible to vote makes such

a request. The secrecy of remote real-time votes, and of non-real-time electronic

votes, shall be ensured by the Dean's (or designee's) assignment of a suitable non-

faculty member to receive those votes in confidence and report the results to the

faculty.

6. Unless otherwise specified, a majority (the smallest integer greater than half the

denominator) vote is required to approve an issue.

7. The denominator consists of votes (not including abstentions), whether real- or non-

real-time (as specified in Paragraph 2), received from faculty eligible to vote,

including those on sabbatical or other approved leave. Proxy ballots are not

accepted. Blank and illegible ballots are not counted. The report of the voting results

shall include the number of abstentions.

V. PROCEDURES FOR TENURE & PROMOTION

V.1 Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Dossiers.

The Dean’s office will distribute the "SEAS Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure

Dossiers" prior to the beginning of each Academic year, which shall include an

approximate timeline of events. A recommended timeline and contents of the

Candidate Dossiers for tenure and/or promotion are included in sections I and II of the

Addenda to these Procedures.

V.2 Procedures of the School-Wide Personnel Committee (SWPC)

Note: Membership of the SWPC committee and the SWPC Subcommittee shall be

defined as stated in the SEAS bylaws.

a. The Full Professor serving as Chair of the SWPC Subcommittee shall chair

meetings of the SWPC. He or she shall recuse him or herself from chairing the

SWPC meeting when the SWPC is considering a candidate from his or her

own department. Following a recusal, a chair ‘pro-tem’ shall be elected to

serve only in the specific case.

b. For cases involving promotion to the rank of Professor, Associate Professor

members of the SWPC are not eligible to participate in the discussion and are

not eligible to vote.

c. At the SWPC meetings, in the event that a vote of the SWPC does not concur

with the recommendation of the Department, the SWPC Chair shall identify

Compelling Reasons, as specified in the Faculty Code, for the

nonconcurrence. The basis of such Compelling Reasons should reside within

the strengths and weaknesses identified in the presentations of the SWPC

subcommittee during the SWPC committee meeting and the discussions

during the SWPC committee meeting that follow thereof. The write-up of

Compelling Reasons by the Chair shall be shared with the SWPC.

d. Any nonconcurrence by the SWPC shall be communicated by the SWPC

Chair to the Provost and the Faculty Senate, with the Chair’s explanation of

the Compelling Reasons of the nonconcurrence.

V.3 Procedures of the SWPC Subcommittee

a. After election of SWPC Subcommittee members, the members elect a chair by

nominations and voting. The chair arranges for subsequent meetings and

procedures, and provides relevant documents and templates to members.

b. While all SWPC Subcommittee members review all cases, review panels

composed of members of the SWPC Subcommittee may be formed to expedite

the review process in the event of a large number of candidates. Each panel will

elect a chair and each panel chair will ensure that the panel provides in-depth

review of cases assigned to the panel.

c. Panels should have at least three members with a composition such that no

members will be from the home department of any candidate under review by

the panel. Typically, the case for each candidate will be assigned for detailed

review to one panel member, who subsequently will present that case to the full

Subcommittee, and later to the full SWPC.

d. Assignments of the panels shall normally be by consensus, and by vote only if

required.

e. A standard format for presentation of results using templates provided by the

SWPC Subcommittee shall be used. The Dean’s office shall maintain a repository

of these templates on behalf of the SWPC Subcommittee.

f. After presentation of each case by the relevant panel, the full SWPC

Subcommittee further reviews and discusses the case, and will conduct a vote by

secret ballot. The SWPC Subcommittee votes, in addition to the Department’s

votes on each case, will be included in the final presentations to the SWPC.

g. Presentation slides for each case will reflect the deliberations of the full SWPC

Subcommittee.

h. The Dean will schedule the SWPC meeting(s) for presentation of the results of

the SWPC Subcommittee and further consideration of each case, with a

minimum two-week notice.

i. The full dossier of each candidate will be made available to the SWPC ahead of

that Committee’s meeting through Dean’s office.

j. The results, using the presentation slides, will be presented to the SWPC for

further consideration for each case. The SWPC votes by secret ballot.

k. Information dissemination procedures:

• The Dean’s office will maintain a restricted-access electronic repository

website devoted to promotion and tenure matters. This section of the

website will allow access only to SWPC Subcommittee members and

appropriate staff in the Dean’s office.

• This document and others related to tenure/promotion will be posted in

the appropriate section. Other documents to be posted include procedures

for each department and the Provost’s requirements.

VI. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

In accordance with Section IV of the George Washington University Faculty Code,

promotion and tenure of faculty shall be dependent upon professional excellence as

evidenced by teaching effectiveness, productive scholarship, participation and

leadership in professional societies, service to the University, and public service. The

specific criteria for evaluating each faculty member’s contribution in each of these

areas depend on the goals, aspirations, and mission of the individual department

within the School of Engineering and Applied Science. The School of Engineering

and Applied Science has established the following general criteria to guide the

development of specific department criteria.

VI.A Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty

VI.1 General Criteria

(i) Education - Faculty candidates for appointment, promotion and tenure

shall have an earned doctoral degree from a recognized university.

(ii) Scholarship – Scholarship is an essential component of the School’s

mission. Faculty members are expected to develop a research program

in one or more disciplines where they make original and important

contributions to their fields. The letters of reference from authorities in

the candidate’s field of expertise are important in this consideration.

(iii) Teaching – Effective teaching is a key component of the School’s

mission to prepare the next generation of engineers, scientists and

researchers. The arts and skills requisite for the transmission of

effective and independent knowledge and guidance are the mark of the

teacher. This includes but is not limited to the following: competent and

conscientious preparation, and delivery, of courses; revision of content

dictated by new needs or knowledge; efforts made toward acquiring

training or mentoring in teaching, and use of appropriate instructional

techniques. The judgment of colleagues and students who have direct

knowledge or experience of the individual faculty member is relevant

in this connection.

(iv) University and Professional Service - The faculty plays an important

role in the administration of the University and in the formulation of

its policies. Faculty members should take an active role, appropriate to

their rank, in this process at the department, school and university

levels. The faculty member also should have an active involvement in

technical and professional societies related to his/her area of research.

This involvement may include reviewing papers and grant proposals,

organizing technical sessions in conferences, serving on conference

program committees, organizing and chairing conferences, and serving

in editorial roles of technical journals.

VI.2 Criteria by Rank

1. Assistant Professor

Appointments at this rank are made to individuals who exhibit,

through their accomplishments, a promise of future distinction in

scholarship and teaching. Since this is a tenure track position, the

appointee, at the time of appointment, should demonstrate the

potential of achieving the qualities needed for promotion to Associate

Professor with tenure. Appointment at this level is not made with

tenure.

2. Associate Professor

The rank of Associate Professor is normally attained by promotion from

Assistant Professor, although a new appointment at the level of

Associate Professor is also possible. An individual holding this rank

should possess a record of excellence in scholarship as demonstrated

by an emerging national and/or international reputation in

scholarship, excellence in teaching and advising, and service to the

University and to the profession. The candidate’s scholarship is

measured by a sustained level of creating scholarly products,

publication activity in refereed professional journals and peer-

reviewed venues (e.g., conferences) within his/her discipline, honors,

grants and sponsored research, and an active role in his/her profession.

The letters of reference from authorities in the candidate’s field of

expertise are important in this consideration.

3. Professor

The rank of Professor is normally attained by promotion from

Associate Professor, although a new appointment at the level of

Professor is also possible. To hold this rank, an individual should be

evaluated according to the following criteria: academic leadership,

possession of an internationally recognized record of excellence in

scholarship, sustained level of excellent performance in education, and

service to the University and to the profession. The candidate

should have a sustained record of important contributions to his/her

discipline, thus establishing themselves as a leader in their field, as

evidenced by peer- reviewed publications, peer-reviewed grants,

invited conference presentations, honors, awards, patents and/or

prizes. The applicant is normally expected to have a history of

completed PhD students with a strong record of scholarship who are

now employed in academia, government, industry or other

appropriate organizations. The candidate is expected to also have

positions of leadership within technical and professional organizations.

The letters of reference from authorities in the candidate’s field of

expertise are important in this consideration.

VI.3 Tenure

A recommendation for the granting of tenure expresses the

confidence of the School in the candidate’s ability as a teacher and

scholar and for her or his long-term contributions to the development

of the School. This implies that the candidate has the potential to

become a recognized leader with an active research program in

his/her field, to teach with distinction and perform service as

appropriate for the department, school, university and the profession.

VI.4 Additional Guidelines for Promotion Criteria related to Teaching

For a departmental recommendation for promotion with an emphasis on teaching and

the educational mission, a broader assessment of excellence would include evaluating

a variety of activities contributing to the educational mission of the institution

including but not limited to: classroom teaching; online or virtual teaching; clinical and

practical teaching; mentoring of students and fellow faculty in teaching; class

management and administration; preparation of teaching & learning materials;

contributions to pedagogy, methodology, and techniques beyond the classroom;

teaching-related service to departments, schools, the university, and society.

Candidates for promotion based on teaching may be evaluated in categories such as:

• Impact on students. A strong commitment to students’ learning, as assessed from

impartially facilitated student focus groups and evaluations. Impact on students

described through student success and recognition of impact. In-depth

mentoring impacting students’ development.

• Professional development. Continual engagement in professional learning related

to teaching, creative activities applied to teaching, the application of teaching

techniques drawn from disciplinary best practices, reflection and response to

feedback on teaching., efforts to acquire external or internal funding to support

teaching activities,

• Impact on peers, institution, field or community. Support development of faculty

and learners (teaching assistants, learning assistants), rigorous, educationally

relevant, evidence-based research about student learning in higher education,

service in support of the educational mission of the institution, pedagogical and

curricular contributions that significantly enhance academic programs of the

institution.

VII. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES

The Dean or the Faculty may form additional ad hoc or administrative committees as

needed to take up matters that are typically outside the purview of existing committees.

VIII. RECORD OF SEAS FACULTY MEETINGS

The Dean shall maintain a searchable and conveniently organized electronic repository

reflecting the deliberations of the SEAS Faculty to include: the minutes of SEAS Faculty

meetings, as well as documents and attachments relevant to matters brought up in the

meetings or for non-real-time votes. This repository will be made internet-accessible to

regular SEAS Faculty while respecting confidentiality in personnel matters.

ADDENDA TO SEAS PROCEDURES

The Addenda to the SEAS Procedures are intended to serve as guidelines. As such,

adherence is not required but recommended. Amendments to the Addenda may be

recommended by the SEAS Bylaws Committee or the Executive Committee, and

approved by the Executive Committee after discussion at a SEAS Faculty meeting.

I. ADDENDA PERTAINING TO PROMOTION & TENURE

I.1 Recommended Timeline of Events

Previous Spring

• By the end of the Spring semester, Departments notify faculty members who are

coming up, or who have indicated an intent to apply, for tenure/promotion, of the

types of documents that are required in a dossier and provide copies of appropriate

departmental and SEAS procedures and bylaws. Where applicable, the latter should

include current Office of the Provost’s instructions and deadlines for personnel

actions, including recommendations for tenure, promotion, emeritus status and

sabbatical leave.

• May-October: Departments seek external review letters. Note: depending on the

conventions of their discipline, some departments can start early and obtain letters

over the summer while others can defer to the Fall.

By the start of the Fall semester, the Dean’s office will distribute to the faculty a

schedule for the following actions in the Fall and Spring.

Fall

• Candidates submit official packages of materials to their departments. Note:

Departments that seek outside letters over the summer may request some materials

from candidates earlier.

• Departments elect their representatives to the SWPC (School-Wide Personnel

Committee) Subcommittee. Dean spells out charge to the SWPC Subcommittee.

• SWPC Subcommittee elects chair by email.

• SWPC Subcommittee organizes panels for each case.

• All materials are due in the Dean’s office in binders and electronic form.

• All materials are posted electronically and confidentially on the SWPC

Subcommittee website.

• Panel reviews for all candidates initiated.

• SWPC Subcommittee chair schedules Spring meetings, synchronizing with Dean’s

office to align with the SEAS faculty meeting dates.

Spring

• Panels present cases at full SWPC Subcommittee meeting.

• If necessary, second full SWPC Subcommittee meeting held to allow panels to

present remaining cases. SWPC Subcommittee presents its summary findings on

each candidate to the full SWPC and the Dean. The SWPC then votes individually

on each candidate’s application for promotion and/or tenure.

• Faculty tenure recommendations with accompanying materials are due to the

Provost.

• Faculty promotion recommendations with accompanying materials are due to the

Provost.

I.2 External Review Letters – Model Request Letter (Should consider guidance

provided the Provost’s office)

[Referee Name and Address]

[Date]

Dear [Referee Name]

The Department of [department name] at The George Washington University will

shortly be considering [candidate and title of candidate] for [promotion, promotion and

tenure, or tenure] to [title with or without tenure]. As part of the tenure and promotion

process, we are required to obtain letters of recommendation attesting to the

qualifications of [applicant]. I am writing to formally request that you provide to us a

letter describing your candid evaluation of [candidate]’s scholarly work.

Attached is a copy of [candidate]’s curriculum vitae [and several of [his/her] significant

publications for your review]. [Several of [his/her] significant publications are available

at [web address] for your review].

We expect that the candidate demonstrate excellence in, and commitment to

scholarship, teaching, and service. As a medium-sized private university, The George

Washington University prizes research and teaching in equal measure. Hence, in

addition to the research and scholarship contributions, please also take into

consideration the teaching contributions of the applicant (as described in the attached

curriculum vitae) while making your evaluation.

We request that your review consider the following, and that you address both

strengths and weaknesses of the candidate:

§ Description of your relationship to the candidate: how long, and in what roles,

have you known the candidate?

§ Independence. State any possible conflict-of-interest, if applicable.

§ Evaluation of the candidate’s contributions in scholarship, education, and

professional service

o What is your evaluation of the originality, quality, focus, impact and

importance of the candidate’s research and scholarship endeavors? Which, if

any, of [his/her] publications do you consider to valuable contributions to the

field?

o If applicable, what are your impressions of the candidate’s contributions to

engineering education? Please take into consideration course, curriculum and

program development, teaching, research in education, educational outreach

and the inclusion of undergraduates in research.

o What are your impressions of the candidate’s professional engagement

(service) both within the university (from the curriculum vitae) and external

to the university, in the field in general?

o What is your opinion of the candidate’s professional reputation (nationally

and/or internationally)? How does [his/her] work compare with others in

the field, especially those at a comparable stage of their careers?

§ Evaluation of the candidate’s promise: how much promise does [candidate] show

for further growth and significant contributions in [his/her] field?

[The above is a necessary set of questions that the letter writers must be asked. Other

questions may be asked according to departmental requirements or wishes.]

We welcome any other comments that would assist in our departmental deliberations,

as well as in further consideration of promotion [and tenure] at the School of

Engineering and Applied Sciences and University levels.

Members of our faculty and internal review committee who see your letter as a part of

the promotion [and tenure] process will hold the comments you make in strict

confidence.

We will need your formal evaluation by letter and a copy of your curriculum vitae by

[date]. We know that comprehensive letters of this kind require considerable

investment of time and energy on your part, and wish to thank you in advance for your

effort. Letters of reference are an exceptionally important component of the promotion

[and tenure] package, and we greatly appreciate your input.

If you have any questions for me, please do not hesitate to email me at [[email protected]]

or call me at (202) 994-[].

Sincerely,

[]

[Professor and Chair]

[Professor and Chair, Personnel Subcommittee for Tenure and Promotion of

[candidate]]

I.3 Presentation of Candidate Cases Via Slides

The subcommittee will provide a report summarizing its recommendation on each

application for promotion and/or tenure. For brevity and convenience, it is

recommended that the report consist of a presentation using a standardized format for

all candidates. Where appropriate (degrees, publications, course listings etc.), use

reverse chronological order.

Structure and contents of report/slides:

1. Background

a. Degrees, with dates.

b. Employment history, with dates.

c. Any special circumstances for the candidate (such as family leave, shorter

tenure clock, etc.)

d. Candidate’s start-up package.

2. Scholarship

a. Publication summary (numbers). For each category, include the total

number, total number since previous promotion, and total number at GW.

i. Journal papers.

ii. Conference papers.

iii. Other venues or patents, if applicable.

Note: in some fields (e.g., CS), conference venues are often more

important, and should be pointed out within the summary.

b. Research sponsorship summary. Include total funding so far, total

funding since previous promotion, total amount awarded to GW, total as

PI.

c. Research sponsorship details. List of grants, specifying for each grant: the

title, source, whether candidate is PI or co-PI, total amount awarded, total

amount awarded to GW.

d. Scholarship: student advising. Students advised for research. How many

graduated, how many currently advised.

e. Reference letter summary. List of references, clearly indicating

independence and whether department-selected.

f. Representative quotes from references.

g. Scholarship summary slides with strengths, weaknesses, and additional

comments.

3. Teaching

a. Summary slide showing: (1) courses taught by category: new courses

introduced, courses revamped, core courses; (2) teaching awards; (3)

summary of student evaluations, compared with department.

b. Table of courses taught with evaluation summary for each.

c. Representative quotes from peer evaluations.

d. Representative quotes from student letters, if applicable.

e. Curriculum development.

f. Summary slides with strengths, weaknesses, and additional comments.

4. Service

a. Summary slide.

b. Service to the profession.

c. Service to Department, SEAS, GW, community.

5. Overall summary slide

a. Strengths, weaknesses, additional comments.

b. Assessment of whether department procedures were followed.

c. Department vote.

d. Subcommittee vote.

e. Any other relevant information.

II. Recommended Contents of the Candidate Dossiers for tenure and/or

promotion

II.1 Contents of Candidate Dossiers

Contents of the dossier include material provided by the candidate and that provided

by the department. Information in each category is to be presented in reverse

chronological order. All documents, except where noted, are to be provided in both

electronic and printed form.

Dossier content provided by the candidate:

1. Table of contents and certification. The first page should list the contents of the

dossier, along with a statement from the candidate that the dossier adheres to the

contents and order given here.

2. 3-page CV summary (template attached)

3. Full CV (template attached)

4. List of references. List of at least 5 references, including name, affiliation, title,

contact details, whether a collaborator or not (as defined in V.7), short bio of the

referee, and brief description (couple of sentences) of why the referee is qualified

to comment on the candidate’s professional accomplishments.

5. Research and Scholarship statement. Overview of research contributions, their

impact, and future directions.

6. Materials demonstrating proposal activity (optional). Reviews of highly-rated

proposals that did not result in funding may be included.

7. Most significant publications. Copies (up to 5) of the most significant

publications listed in the CV.

8. Electronic copies of all publications.

a. Books

b. Book Chapters

c. Journal Papers

d. Peer-reviewed Conference Publications

e. Other Publications

9. List of other scholarly products

10. Teaching overview. See V.5 below.

11. Faculty annual reports

12. Other pertinent information. Any other information that the candidate deems to

be useful.

Dossier content provided by department:

1. Department Faculty Recommendation as detailed in V.6.

2. Description and categorization of external references. These pages should list

each external reference, along with a short bio, clearly indicating whether they

are independent or not, and whether department-selected or candidate-selected, as

defined in V.7. If there is a conflict-of-interest, this should be explained.

3. Letters of reference. The actual letters (scanned, if necessary). See V.7 for details.

4. Peer evaluations of teaching. Both from within the department and from the

Dean’s Teaching Advisory Committee (DTAC). See V.5.

II.2 Teaching Section of Dossier

Following is a condensed version of the requirements from the Provost’s office. For

additional details and explanation, see the document from the Provost’s Office entitled

Teaching Portfolio Guidelines for Tenure & Promotion: What Should a Dossier Contain?

Candidates and departments will provide the following in sequence for the teaching

section of their dossier:

A. Teaching Statement (candidate). In three pages or less, with specific examples from

your courses, describe your approach to teaching, what you have learned from your

teaching, how you have sought to improve your teaching, and how you will

continue to develop your program of teaching.

B. Courses taught during period of evaluation (candidate)

1. Course list. Starting with the table below (and potentially expanding it), list

each course you have taught, the enrollment, and whether graduate or

undergraduate. If a course is a new prep or if you made any major changes

to the course, please indicate that in the last column, with optional details

provided separately in item B.2 below.

2. #

Course#

Title

# enrolled

grad/UG/

other

New

prep/redesign

2. I

lustrative examples. For at least one but no more than three courses from the

list above and using no more than one page per course, list the learning

objectives/outcomes and the topics, the teaching approach, some of the

learning activities, and some example assessments of learning outcomes you

used. Syllabi for these courses may be included or referred to using a web

address.

C. Teaching effectiveness (candidate and if appropriate department). Summary of

student evaluations, peer reviews, representative quotes, teaching awards.

D. Development and continual improvement (candidate). This section lets a candidate

describe efforts taken towards learning and applying new techniques in teaching.

Examples include attendance at teaching workshops, actions taken in response to peer-

reviews or departmental review of teaching.

E. Impact on Department, GW, and the discipline (candidate). This section includes

contributions to the curriculum, program development, authoring of textbooks or other

materials, mentoring of teaching and contributions to assessment.

II.3 Department Faculty Recommendation

The ad hoc Department Faculty Personnel Committee (DFPC) of the candidate’s

Department shall prepare a letter either demonstrating at all stages of the process that

the candidate has met the published written criteria for excellence, or explaining why

the candidate has failed to meet the written criteria for excellence as is required for

tenure and/or promotion. The DFPC for assistant professors, or associate professors

shall consist of the tenured members of the faculty of higher rank. The DFPC for

professors shall consist of tenured members of the Department of the rank of Professor.

The Department Faculty Recommendation letter must provide available evidence that

the candidate has achieved excellence in their disciplines through their contributions to

scholarship, teaching and service, and the potential to continue to do so. In the event

that the candidate fails to meet these standards, the letter should explain why. The

following specific points should also be addressed in the letter:

1. Any special circumstances for the candidate (such as family leave, short tenure

clock, etc.)

2. If the candidate served in other institutions after the doctoral degree, what

contributions were made while at GW.

3. The candidate’s research and scholarship contributions, including a short

description of the research impact (i.e. not just the number of papers and grants,

but a qualitative report of the research) and any research awards.

4. The letters of reference obtained, including specific and representative quotes

from the references. If any references are given greater of lesser weight than

others, this should be explained.

5. The candidate’s teaching contributions in both quantitative and qualitative

terms. Include the number of courses taught, whether undergraduate or

graduate, any key roles played in leading departmental academic activities such

as program and curriculum development, any teaching awards.

6. The teaching evaluations obtained: including course evaluations, peer

evaluations, and any other evaluations obtained, along with specific and

representative quotes.

7. The candidate’s service contributions, including to the department, school,

university and the external community.

8. The outcome of the DFPC vote with brief justification, including a reference to

the list of strengths and weaknesses cited by the DFPC.

9. Any other material deemed necessary for consideration of the candidate’s case

for tenure and/or promotion, such as whether the candidate has responded to

feedback given in the past.

II.4 External Review Letters:

An independent reference is one for whom a reasonable person with knowledge of the

relevant facts is unlikely to question impartiality in conducting an evaluation. Conflict-

of-Interest rules and descriptions from agencies like NSF and NIH provide examples. A

letter writer is considered department-selected if the department picked a name without

consulting the candidate, and candidate-selected if the candidate submits the name. If an

independent letter writer is on both lists, the letter writer is considered to be department-

selected

Choice of references

1. At least five independent letters are required. Additional letters may be

submitted.

2. At least three letter writers should be Department-selected.

3. Letter writers from the candidate’s thesis committee are discouraged. At most,

one such letter may be submitted, if well justified by the Department in the

Chair’s letter.

4. References should be from prominent individuals with the experience and

expertise to evaluate quality in the candidate’s field of work. They may be:

a. Faculty at or above the rank being sought

b. Individuals in government or industry at a senior rank, with a record of

scholarly achievements (as evidenced by archival publications,

professional society honors and awards)

c. Retired experts (including Emeritus Faculty).