Department Bylaws
1.1 Introduction1.2 Voting Faculty
1.3 Department Head
1.3.1 Appointment of the Head
1.3.2 Role of the Head
1.3.3 Annual Evaluation of the Head
1.4 Advisory Committee
1.4.1 Advisory Committee Elections
1.4.2 Role of the Advisory Committee
1.5 Faculty meetings
1.6 Major Standing Committees
1.6.1 Curriculum
1.6.2 Admission and Retention of Graduate Students
1.7 Other Committees
1.8 Amendments 2.1 Research
2.2 Teaching
2.3 Service
3 Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Review for All Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty
3.1 Appointment3.2 Annual Retention Review of Tenure-track Faculty
3.3 Midpoint Review of Tenure-track Faculty
3.4 Tenure and Promotion
3.4.1 Departmental Criteria and Expectations for Tenure and Promotion
3.4.1.1 Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
3.4.1.2 Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor
3.4.2 Committees
3.4.3 Teaching Materials
3.4.4 Research Materials
3.4.5 Service Materials
3.4.6 Faculty Recommendation
3.5 Annual Evaluation of Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
3.6 Expectations for Teaching, Research, and Service for Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
3.6.1 Teaching
3.6.2 Research
3.6.3 Service
3.6.4 Annual Review of Joint Faculty
3.7 Definitions for Overall Rating of Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
3.7.1 Exceeds Expectations
3.7.2 Needs Improvement
3.7.3 Unsatisfactory 4.1 Appointment
4.2 Annual Review of Non-Tenure-track Faculty
4.2.1 Expectations for Teaching
4.2.2 Definitions of "Needs Improvement" and "Unsatisfactory"
1.1 Introduction
These bylaws represent this department’s implementation of the provisions on faculty governance that appear in the University Faculty Handbook, the Manual for Faculty Evaluation, and the bylaws of the College of Arts and Sciences. The departmental bylaws are a supplement to the other three documents and are not in themselves complete.
1.2 Voting Faculty
The various faculty ranks are defined in the Faculty Handbook. Voting Faculty consist of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty, Voting Joint Faculty, defined as Joint Faculty whose regular teaching load is at least 50% of the normal Tenured and Tenure-Track teaching load, and Voting Lecturers, defined as Lecturers with at least one year term contracts at least 50% time.
1.3 Department Head
1.3.1 Appointment of the Head
The Department Head is appointed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences following the procedures in the Faculty Handbook.
1.3.2 Role of the Head
In addition to the role set out in the Faculty Handbook, college bylaws, and Evaluation Manual, the Head has responsibilities specific to the mathematics department. The Head presides over meetings of the whole faculty and the Advisory Committee. The Head may appoint additional faculty to assist in administration within the department. The Head will seek the recommendations of the major standing committees and/or the Advisory Committee regarding scheduling of courses, registration policies, and other procedures necessary to administer the mission of the department.
1.3.3 Annual Evaluation of the Head
The performance of the department head will be reviewed annually in accordance with policies of the College of Arts and Sciences.
return to top of document
1.4 Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee consists of the Head, four members elected at large by the tenured, tenure-track, and voting joint faculty, and two additional members appointed by the Head. The term of office of members elected at large will be two years, two new members being elected each year. At the discretion of the Head, departmental administrators who are not members of the Advisory Committee may attend Advisory Committee meetings.
Regular meetings of the Advisory Committee will be held each month during the academic year; additional meetings may be called as needed.
1.4.1 Advisory Committee Elections
Advisory Committee elections will be held between April 1 and April 15 each
year. The Head will call for nominations from the Voting Faculty, each member
of which may nominate two people. Any tenured or tenure-track faculty member
who receives three or more nominations will be named on the ballot unless that
member declines nomination. Voting will be by secret ballot and counted under
the direction of the Advisory Committee. If three or more people tie for the
largest number of votes, a run-off election between them will be held. Otherwise,
the two candidates with the largest number of votes will be elected. If two
or more people tie for the second largest number of votes, a run-off election
between them will be held.
The Head will appoint two additional members promptly after the election, and the new Advisory Committee will take office on May 1.
When elected members will be absent from the university for three months or
longer, a special election will be held to select a substitute to serve during
the period of absence.
1.4.2 Role of the Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee will advise the Head on policies and procedures governing
the recruitment of new faculty members, salary determinations, allocations of
funds, committee and administrative assignments, and any other matters designated
by the Head. The Head will circulate the agenda of upcoming Advisory Committee
meetings to all faculty and will notify the department of progress on important
topics.
1.5 Faculty meetings
The agenda of each faculty meeting will be distributed to the faculty at least
five calendar days before the meeting. Items may be placed on the agenda by
the Head, any standing committee of the faculty, faculty action at a previous
faculty meeting, or petition signed by ten percent of the Voting Faculty.
A quorum consists of a majority of tenured and tenure-track faculty who are
eligible to vote at the meeting. Faculty meetings are conducted in accordance
with the procedures set down in the revised Robert's Rules of Order except as
otherwise provided in these bylaws. The Head will appoint a parliamentarian
for faculty meetings.
1.6 Major Standing Committees
The major standing committees are the Undergraduate Committee and the Graduate
Committee. These committees will report directly to the faculty at faculty meetings.
Each major standing committee consists of at least seven Voting Faculty members
appointed by the Head in consultation with the Advisory Committee. The Head
will designate one member of each committee to chair the committee.
The major standing committees meet at least once during each term. Additional
meetings may be called by the chair or on petition of three members. A majority
will constitute a quorum.
return to top of document
1.6.1 Curriculum
All changes to the undergraduate or graduate catalogs must first be approved
by the respective standing committee. Changes that are approved by the standing
committee are presented in finished form for approval at a faculty meeting.
Each committee will periodically review the respective curriculum in light of
the changing needs of students and the requirements of other departments, the
college, and the university.
The major standing committees will ensure that, when appropriate, course materials
are developed and made available either by subcommittees or administrators within
the department such as course coordinators.
The major standing committees will either consider petitions from students concerning
catalog requirements or designate consideration of petitions to an appropriate
departmental administrator.
1.6.2 Admission and Retention of Graduate Students
A subcommittee of the Graduate Committee will screen applications for admission
to graduate programs. The Graduate Committee will advise the Head regarding
criteria for appointment and retention of graduate teaching assistants, including
making policies concerning graduate students' rights and responsibilities
1.7 Other Committees
Additional standing and ad hoc committees may be formed by either the faculty
at a faculty meeting or by the Head. The chair of any committee is designated
by the Head in consultation with the Advisory Committee and must be a member
of the Voting Faculty.
1.8 Amendments
The faculty will have the power to amend these bylaws according to the following
procedures.
1. Amendment proposals will originate through a petition to the Advisory Committee
signed by at least seven members of the Voting Faculty or directly from the
Advisory Committee itself.
2. The Advisory Committee will present proposed amendments to the faculty in
writing at least 14 days before the next regular faculty meeting following receipt
of a petition.
3. At that faculty meeting (or subsequent meetings when in order) a motion to
poll the faculty for the purpose of adopting the prospective amendment may be
made and voted upon according to the usual rules of parliamentary procedure,
a majority vote being sufficient to carry the motion.
4. After a motion to poll the faculty has carried, a ballot will be distributed
immediately to all Voting Faculty and, after seven days, votes will be counted
under the direction of the Advisory Committee. An affirmative vote by two-thirds
of the faculty who do vote will constitute an enactment of the amendment, provided
at least two-thirds of the tenured and tenure-track faculty do vote.
Amendments will become effective immediately following the vote of enactment,
and the Voting Faculty will be informed in writing.
return to top of document
2 Faculty Workload
2.1 Research
Tenured and tenure-track mathematics faculty members are expected to be engaged
in ongoing research programs with clear goals. Output of the research program
may include publication of books and/or articles in peer-reviewed journals,
and presentations at scholarly meetings. Where appropriate, faculty members
work towards acquiring external funding.
2.2 Teaching
The teaching responsibilities of tenured and tenure-track faculty include a
normal teaching load of two classes per semester. Over time, tenured and tenure-track
faculty members are expected to contribute to the teaching mission of the department
at various levels, from lower division service courses to graduate courses and
seminars. The teaching mission of tenure-track and, especially, tenured faculty
also includes direction of undergraduate and graduate research, including honors
and masters' theses, masters' projects, and doctoral dissertations.
2.3 Service
All faculty, and to a larger degree tenured faculty, are expected to participate
in departmental governance, administration, and committees; academic advising
and mentoring of students; college and university committees and taskforces;
community outreach activities; and service to the profession.
3 Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Review for All Tenure-track and Tenured Faculty
3.1 Appointment
When permission to search for one or more tenure track positions is obtained, or the head judges that such permission is likely to be obtained, a faculty meeting of tenured, tenure-track, and voting joint faculty will be held to advise the head concerning the research area(s) in which to hire. Potential areas will be ranked via a single Borda ballot. In order for a research area to be placed on the ballot, supporters of the area must present a list of willing nominees sufficient for the creation of a search committee in the area. The Head will be advised by this ballot and other discussion at the meeting, and in consultation with the Advisory Committee will select the area(s) in which to hire and appoint a search committee for each area.
When a final list of at least three candidates for a position has been selected, tenured, tenure-track, and voting joint faculty will meet to rank the candidates for the position via Borda ballot and make a recommendation to the head.
3.2 Annual Retention Review of Tenure-track Faculty
The head will appoint a retention committee consisting of two members of the
department in, or close to, the faculty member's research area. The committee
will solicit the documentation required by the faculty handbook and write a
brief summary of these materials. During a meeting of tenured faculty, the records
of tenure-track faculty will be discussed and the faculty will vote for or against
retention of the candidate. The retention committee will add to the earlier
statement a summary of the discussion at the meeting. The vote total and the
narrative will be shared with the faculty member and the Head. A positive recommendation
for retention will result from a simple majority of votes for retention.
3.3 Midpoint Review of Tenure-track Faculty
Tenure-track faculty having a probationary period of more than four years will have an enhanced retention review near the midpoint of the probationary period. The process for the midpoint review is the same as that described below for tenure and promotion, except that the number of external letters solicited will be determined by the department, subject only to the restrictions that at least two, but not all, of the letters be from the candidate's list, and letters from the candidate's dissertation advisor, postdoctoral mentor, or recent co-author will be acceptable. Candidates for midpoint review will be evaluated based on their progress toward meeting, by the end of their probationary period, the expectations stated below for tenure.
3.4 Tenure and Promotion
Candidates for tenure and promotion will be evaluated according to the standards and procedures in the Faculty Handbook, the College of Arts and Sciences Statement of Criteria for Promotion and Tenure, and the Departmental Criteria and Expectations for Tenure and Promotion below. In this section, "candidate" will refer to the faculty member who is being considered for tenure, promotion, or midpoint retention. "Eligible voting faculty" will refer to tenured faculty for tenure or midpoint retention cases and to tenured faculty of higher rank than the candidate for promotion cases.
3.4.1 Departmental Criteria and Expectations for Tenure and Promotion
Candidates must meet an acceptable standard in each of the areas of research, teaching, and service, as described below. Candidates are also expected to exhibit excellence or strong promise of excellence in some area or areas.
Evaluation of research is based on regular publication of papers in reputable, refereed journals or books having substantial new research content. Other indicators of quality research include invited presentations at conferences, invited seminars or colloquia, interdisciplinary collaboration, research grant proposals, and quality of directed doctoral dissertations. Factors which may constitute evidence of excellence in research include significant research grant support or other major research awards, a publication record that is much stronger than the norm, invited plenary talks at prestigious conferences (as indicated by the institutions at which the organizers and main speakers are based), and invited seminars or colloquia in highly ranked departments.
Factors that may contribute to an evaluation of teaching include teaching materials, feedback from students, peer visitations, and grade distributions. Factors which may constitute evidence of excellence in teaching include significant involvement in advising theses or dissertations, giving seminars or colloquia primarily intended for students, involvement in undergraduate research, publication of textbooks or other works relevant to teaching, awards for teaching, significant involvement in curriculum development, and external funding for teaching-related activities or to support the department's teaching mission.
Service will be evaluated on the basis of service to the university through departmental, college, and university committee work or administrative duties, and service to the profession through refereeing, reviewing, editorial work, conference or special session organization, serving on regional, national, or international committees or organizations related to the mathematics profession, or through significant outreach work related to mathematics. Factors which may give evidence of excellence in service include leadership roles within the university, such as significant service on College or University committees, or in regional, national, or international organizations, outreach which contributes significantly to the visibility of the department, or significant grant support for service-related activities.
3.4.1.1 Criteria for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor
Candidates for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor should have a strong publication record and an active research program at a level consistent with the department's ranking among mathematics departments by the National Research Council, be visible and active professionally, and have national research recognition. Candidates should exhibit good teaching practice at all levels, including organizing classes carefully,
presenting material clearly in class, following fair grading procedures, and being receptive to student questions in class and office hours.
Candidates are expected to participate in the administrative work of the department by serving on departmental committees or by carrying out other department tasks when asked. Candidates are expected to serve the profession by doing referee, review or organizational work, or by participating in mathematical organizations.
3.4.1.2 Criteria for Promotion to Full Professor
Candidates for promotion to Full Professor should satisfy all the criteria for promotion to Associate Professor. In addition, candidates must have an outstanding publication record, an ongoing research program which has received international recognition, should have substantial involvement in promoting undergraduate or graduate student research, and should exhibit the potential for leadership in the department.
3.4.2Committees
Candidates must meet an acceptable standard in each of the areas of research, teaching, and service, as described below. Candidates are also expected to exhibit excellence or strong promise of excellence in some area or areas.
Evaluation of research is based on regular publication of papers in reputable, refereed journals or books having substantial new research content. Other indicators of quality research include invited presentations at conferences, invited seminars or colloquia, interdisciplinary collaboration, research grant proposals, and quality of directed doctoral dissertations. Factors which may constitute evidence of excellence in research include significant research grant support or other major research awards, a publication record that is much stronger than the norm, invited plenary talks at prestigious conferences (as indicated by the institutions at which the organizers and main speakers are based), and invited seminars or colloquia in highly ranked departments.
Factors that may contribute to an evaluation of teaching include teaching materials, feedback from students, peer visitations, and grade distributions. Factors which may constitute evidence of excellence in teaching include significant involvement in advising theses or dissertations, giving seminars or colloquia primarily intended for students, involvement in undergraduate research, publication of textbooks or other works relevant to teaching, awards for teaching, significant involvement in curriculum development, and external funding for teaching-related activities or to support the department's teaching mission.
Service will be evaluated on the basis of service to the university through departmental, college, and university committee work or administrative duties, and service to the profession through refereeing, reviewing, editorial work, conference or special session organization, serving on regional, national, or international committees or organizations related to the mathematics profession, or through significant outreach work related to mathematics. Factors which may give evidence of excellence in service include leadership roles within the university, such as significant service on College or University committees, or in regional, national, or international organizations, outreach which contributes significantly to the visibility of the department, or significant grant support for service-related activities.
3.4.3 Teaching Materials
Teaching materials will include all available teacher evaluations from past
academic years, copies of teaching materials from selected courses at various
levels (as determined by the committee).
3.4.4 Research Materials
The candidate will provide the Head with a list of the names of several people qualified to evaluate his/her research. The Head will solicit evaluations of the candidate's research. None of the letters solicited will be from faculty members at the University of Tennessee. Half of the letters in the initial solicitation will come from the candidate's list.
A "recent co-author" is defined to be "someone with whom the candidate has submitted a joint paper within the past 48 months." The letters will be included in the candidate's dossier. The candidate will also provide reprints of all journal publications or books, preprints of submitted papers, and any other evidence of a strong research program.
3.4.5 Service Materials
In addition to the written statement of the candidate, comment will be solicited
from the chair of any committee on which the candidate has served and from participants
in any interdisciplinary or interdepartmental activities involving the candidate.
3.4.6 Faculty Recommendation
The candidate's completed dossier will be made available to eligible voting
faculty at least two weeks prior to a meeting called expressly for the purpose
of making a tenure/promotion recommendation. Eligible voting faculty who will
be absent may submit sealed ballots in advance. During the meeting, the chair
of each of the candidate's two committees will make an objective presentation
of the candidate's qualifications.
After some discussion, those present will vote by secret ballot. After a vote
has been taken, the ballots (including absentee ballots, if any) will be counted
and the totals for and against will be announced. When more than one candidate
is being considered, this count and announcement will be made after votes for
all candidates have been collected.
The chair of the research committee will provide to the Head a written summary of the faculty discussion and the vote, which comprises the recommendation of the faculty to the Head. The minimum number of votes necessary to constitute a positive recommendation by the faculty for tenure or promotion is two-thirds of the number of votes cast. A positive recommendation for midpoint retention will result from a simple majority of votes for retention.
return to top of document
3.5 Annual Evaluation of Tenured, Tenure-Track, and Joint Faculty
The Head will conduct an annual review of each faculty member as set forth in the Evaluation Manual.
3.6 Expectations for Teaching, Research, and Service for
Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty
Performance evaluation normally includes data from the preceding three calendar
years, which will be provided to the Head by the faculty member on the Workload
Form of the College of Arts and Sciences. The faculty member may provide other
relevant documents, such as student evaluations and comments, copies of published
reviews of his or her work, etc. Each faculty member will receive individual
ratings for teaching, research, and service, as well as an overall rating. In
the three individual ratings, faculty who do not meet or exceed expectations
as described below will be rated as "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory".
Except in cases of serious professional misconduct, a faculty member will not
be given a rating of "unsatisfactory" in one of the three areas unless
he/she has previously received a rating of "needs improvement" in
the same area in one or more of the previous three years. Standards will be
modified accordingly for faculty accepting positions within or outside the department
whose descriptions include significantly greater administrative or service responsibilities.
3.6.1 Teaching
To meet expectations for teaching, tenured faculty must be good teachers who
communicate effectively and work enthusiastically with students. Tenure-track
faculty are expected to show a clear interest in, and promise of, developing
these attributes in themselves. Factors that may contribute to the evaluation
of teaching include teaching materials, feedback from students, peer visitations,
and grade distributions.
Factors that may contribute to a rating of "exceeds expectations"
include significant involvement in advising theses and dissertations, giving
seminars or colloquia primarily intended for students, involvement in undergraduate
research, publication of textbooks or other works relevant to teaching, awards
for teaching, significant involvement in curriculum development, and external
funding for teaching-related activities or to support the department's teaching
mission.
3.6.2 Research
To meet expectations for research, full professors should have an ongoing program
of research or scholarly activity at a level consistent with the department's
ranking among mathematics departments by the National Research Council, be visible
and active professionally, and have international recognition for these efforts.
An associate professor should have an active research program at a level consistent
with the department's ranking, be visible and active professionally, and have
national research recognition. An assistant professor should be developing a
research program likely to help the department at least maintain, but preferably
improve, its position in the rankings, and participate in the activities of
the national mathematical community. Evaluation of research is based on regular
publication of papers in reputable, refereed journals or books having substantial
new research content. Other indicators of quality research include invited presentations
at conferences, invited seminars or colloquia, interdisciplinary collaboration,
research grant proposals, and quality of directed doctoral dissertations.
Factors that may contribute to a rating of "exceeds expectations"
include significant research grant support or other major research awards, a
publication record that is much stronger than the norm, invited plenary talks
at prestigious conferences (as indicated by the institutions at which the organizers
and main speakers are based), and invited seminars or colloquia in highly ranked
departments.
3.6.3 Service
To meet expectations for service, tenured faculty are expected to show leadership
within the department; to participate, when asked, in the work of the college
and the university, including outreach; and to put effort into service to the
discipline through the refereeing process and/or involvement in regional, national,
and international organizations. Tenure-track faculty are expected to participate
in departmental activities, normally contributing to at least one active departmental
committee each year.
Factors that may contribute to a ranking of "exceeds expectations" include significant leadership roles within the university or in national organizations, outreach that contributes significantly to the visibility of the department, and significant grant support for service-related activities such as outreach or conference organization.
3.6.4 Annual Review of Joint Faculty
Joint faculty will be reviewed by the procedures and criteria for tenured or tenure-track faculty at the corresponding rank, with the percentage of effort in the department taken into account.
3.7 Definitions for Overall Rating of Tenured and Tenure-track
Faculty
Faculty members will be rated as "meeting expectations" unless they
fall into one of the following categories:
3.7.1 Exceeds Expectations
For tenure-track faculty: exceeds expectations for rank in research and meets
or exceeds expectations in teaching and service.
For tenured faculty: (1) exceeds expectations in two of the three categories
and meets or exceeds expectations in the third, or (2) meets expectations for
teaching and service and has exhibited exemplary research significantly above
what is expected at a university of comparable research ranking.
3.7.2 Needs Improvement
A faculty member will receive this rating if he/she (1) meets or exceeds expectations
in one area and needs improvement in two areas or (2) meets but does not exceed
expectations in two areas and in the third area is rated in the current year
as "needs improvement" and in the previous year as "needs improvement"
or lower.
3.7.3 Unsatisfactory
A faculty member will receive this rating if he/she is rated as needing improvement
in all three areas or unsatisfactory in any area.
return to top of document
4 Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
4.1 Appointment
Appointment of non-tenure-track faculty is carried out by the Head in consultation
with the advisory committee and departmental administrators.
4.2 Annual Review of Non-Tenure-track Faculty
Evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty will follow the procedures given in the
Faculty Handbook and Evaluation Manual. Evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty
is based on evidence of high-quality teaching, with additional consideration
given to administrative work and scholarly activity related to the department's
teaching mission. Performance evaluation normally includes data from the preceding
three calendar years, which will be provided to the Head by the faculty member.
In addition to any required data, the faculty member may provide other relevant
information such as student comments or evidence of scholarly or service activity.
4.2.1 Expectations for Teaching
Lecturers who have been teaching the equivalent of three full-time years are
expected to be good teachers who communicate effectively and work enthusiastically
with students. Lecturers who have been teaching for less than three years are
expected to show a clear interest in, and promise of, developing these attributes
in themselves. Factors that may contribute to the evaluation of teaching include
teaching materials, feedback from students, peer evaluation, and grade distributions.
Factors that may contribute to a rating of "exceeds expectations"
include significant involvement in innovative curriculum development; evidence
of very high student success and satisfaction, significant administrative or
service leadership in the department or university, teaching awards, significant
scholarly activity related to mathematics or mathematics education, leadership
positions in education-oriented organizations, and external funding for teaching-related
activities or to support the department's teaching mission.
4.2.2 Definitions of "Needs Improvement" and
"Unsatisfactory"
Non-tenure-track faculty who do not meet or exceed expectations will be rated
as "needs improvement" unless: (1) serious professional misconduct
has occurred or (2) the faculty member has been rated as "needs improvement"
or below in one or more of the preceding three years. In case of (1) or (2),
a rating of "unsatisfactory" could be given.