Department Operating Paper

OPERATING PAPER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE

Approved by Voting Faculty of the
Department of Civil Engineering
April 14, 2000

Introduction
1. Definition
2. Relationship to the Statutes and Bylaws
Mission Of The Department
Organization
Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and Procedures
The Tenure and Promotion Procedure
Merit Increase Plan
Meetings And Committees
.Amendments And Implementation
1. Amendment
2. Implementation

I. Introduction

A.Definition

The Department of Civil Engineering of the College of Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") is an educational unit engaged in teaching, research, and service in the areas of Civil Engineering.

B.Relationship to the Statutes and Bylaws

This operating paper implements the Bylaws and Statutes of the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University and it is drawn up in specific accord with these Bylaws and Statutes as well as the Operating Paper of the College of Engineering and the latest SIUC/Faculty Association contract.

II.Mission Of The Department

The mission of this Department reflects the overall University mission of instruction, research, and service. To that end, the Departmental priorities are:

(1) to provide undergraduate and graduate educational opportunities that will prepare students for effective and productive careers in the Civil Engineering profession characterized by continued professional growth;
(2) to conduct research related to the discovery, innovation and development of technologies and methods that improve the practice of Civil Engineering and related areas; and
(3) to provide service to the university, the community, and to the profession of Civil Engineering.

In support of these priorities, the primary mission of this Department is to educate future members of the Civil Engineering profession for careers that will span forty years or more. Most Civil Engineers will practice their profession through employment by public agencies at the city, county, state and federal levels; by various industries engaged in one or more aspect of the discipline; and by a variety of large and small consulting firms. The professional Civil Engineer is a conceptualizer, planner, designer and constructor of new and innovative Engineering works and systems. Virtually all of this practice relates in some manner to the welfare of the general public. Technical knowledge of great sophistication and subtlety must be utilized by Civil engineers. A Civil Engineer will also need to have a real understanding of the interrelated social, political, and environmental issues that will be key elements in the decision making process. The Civil Engineer will have to make judgments that extend well beyond the technical domain. To prepare Civil Engineers for this role requires an educational program of technical depth and breadth as well as a broad liberal education.

Therefore, at the undergraduate level, the emphasis is on the academic subjects which form the foundation for Civil Engineering practice. To this end, the undergraduate curriculum is broad based, including topics in mathematics, science, and fundamentals of engineering. The Civil Engineering curriculum is also broad based, with required course work in several areas of Civil Engineering, including a specialization in Environmental Engineering. During their senior year, students are encouraged to focus their studies in the area of their primary interest. Additionally, the curriculum exposes the student to the social and ethical context of the profession of Engineering and provides the liberal education components vital to successful Engineering careers.

Another part of the educational mission of this Department is graduate education. The purpose of the graduate program is to provide the students with the skills necessary to accept leadership roles in the Civil Engineering profession. A student with a M.S.C.E. could also pursue a more research oriented career, including continuing on for a doctorate. Doctoral students typically pursue careers in research or teaching, but can also serve in leadership roles in public agencies or consulting companies.

This Department offers a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering, and participates with other Engineering Departments in offering a Ph.D. program in Engineering Science. The M.S. degree in Civil Engineering has both a thesis and a non-thesis option. These options provide the flexibility for each student to tailor a program to his or her individual needs. At both the Masters and Ph.D. levels, the students are encouraged to participate in both funded and unfunded research projects of the faculty. This exposes the students to current research areas in Civil Engineering and related fields, and supplements the student's course work. The course work at the M.S. level provides a depth of coverage in the student's area of interest.

The Ph.D. program in the College of Engineering is centered around the research strengths of the college. The student takes a strong core of analytical courses essential to all doctoral students. Further concentration on courses in the student's area of interest is also provided.

The research mission of this Department is closely allied with its graduate education mission. The goals of the research program are to participate in the discovery, innovation and development on new technologies and methods that improve the practice of Civil Engineering and related areas. Research is an essential function of a university and generally improves the performance of industry and the quality of life of the society as a whole. Research results impact the graduate educational program directly in terms of thesis and dissertation topics, as well as content of certain graduate classes.

Finally, another important mission of this Department is to provide service to the university, the community, and to the profession of Civil Engineering. The faculty of this Department participate in the governance of this institution through a variety of committees and organizations at the Department, College and University levels. Service to the profession is accomplished through membership and active participation in professional groups, societies, and associations. Activities include serving as regional and national officers, membership on various technical committees, and participation at symposiums and meetings as presenters or session chairs or organizers. The Department and College support a wide range of student groups such as American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Society of Women Engineers (SWE), National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), Society of Hispanic Engineers (SHPE), Illinois Professional Land Surveyors Association (IPLSA) and many more. The final component of the service mission involves service to the region and to the State. As a public university, SIUC has an obligation and a duty to serve as resource for the Southern Illinois region. The faculty fulfills this obligation through a variety of ways such as consulting with local agencies about Civil Engineering related problems.

In summary, the three-fold mission of the Department of Civil Engineering lies in the areas of education, research and service. This Department is dedicated to accomplishing these missions to the maximum degree possible. By satisfying these stated objectives, the Department of Civil Engineering endeavors to be recognized as a competent, productive and valuable member of the University Community and Civil Engineering profession.

III. Organization

A. Faculty, Extended Faculty, and Graduate Faculty

Faculty:
For the purposes of this document, the Faculty of the Department shall consist of all tenure or tenure-track persons having a current appointment of more than 50% in the Department.
The Voting Faculty of the Department shall consist solely of the Faculty of the Department.
Extended Faculty consists of the Chair, Instructors, Lecturers, Adjunct and Visiting appointees holding academic rank in the Department, and all those holding tenure in the Department and not included in Item III.A.2.
The Graduate Faculty of the Department shall consist of all members of the Faculty of the Department who are members of the University Graduate Faculty.

B. Powers and Responsibilities of the Voting Faculty

The Voting Faculty are empowered to initiate, formulate, approve, and change any and all general educational and academic policies and procedures within the scope of the purposes of the Department including academic discipline, admission, retention, academic advisement, and graduation requirements of students majoring in the Department, except as authority is otherwise assigned by the Bylaws and Statutes of the Board of Trustees, or as its autonomy is limited by correct academic and administrative relations with other units of the College of Engineering and the University
Any action duly taken (i.e., voted upon) by the Voting Faculty of the Department in matters in which it has responsibility, shall be binding on all parties within the Department unless rejected by the Department Chair within two weeks.
Permission for a proxy vote from one faculty member to another must be submitted to the Chair in writing, and available at any meeting where the vote is used.
Secret Ballot Procedures:

Secret ballots during Departmental meetings must be distributed, collected and counted by the Chair. The results will be announced during the meeting by the Chair and recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Secret ballots outside regular Departmental meetings must be distributed and collected by the Chair. The ballots will then be counted by the Chair and at least two members of the Faculty Affairs Committee. The results must be announced no later than the next Departmental meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

C. The Department Chair

1.Role and Responsibilities

The Department Chair (hereinafter referred to as the Chair) has the responsibility for the academic program and the effectiveness of the teaching, research, and service efforts of the department. The Chair is expected to (1) provide leadership and work with faculty, students, and administrators to enhance the existing undergraduate and graduate programs in Civil Engineering, (2) guide the future development of the Department, and (3) promote Departmental activities related to high quality teaching, research and service. The Chair is expected to organize and direct the resources of the Department and to be the Departmental advocate both within and external to the University. Specific Departmental responsibilities include: organization of goals and objectives, preparation and administration of the budget, assignment, motivation and performance evaluation of the Faculty, development of research efforts, and direction and administration of undergraduate and graduate instructional programs.

The Department Chair shall provide the Faculty with the annual report of the previous fiscal year on the state of the department before Fall of each academic year. The annual report should include, but is not be limited to: (1) an itemized list of all departmental expenditures other than salary; (2) Faculty summer teaching assignments and contracts; (3) graduate teaching assistantship assignments and contracts; and (4) status of academic programs at both graduate and undergraduate levels, i.e. program quality, existing prospective enrollments, and student graduation numbers.

2.Selection of the Chair

The Voting Faculty of the Department, operating through an ad hoc committee established for that purpose, shall take an active and meaningful part in all the steps, (i.e. the recruiting, screening, interviewing and evaluation of qualified persons) leading to the Dean’s formal recommendation of a person to fill the vacancy in this office. The committee shall be formed by the Dean and consist of either 1) a representative group elected by the Department’s Voting Faculty or 2) the Department as a whole.The search shall otherwise conform to established University policies for hiring procedures as found in the “Personnel Policies Civil Service, Faculty, and Administrative/Professional Staff on the Carbondale Campus”.

3.Review of the Chair

The Dean will be notified at the outset of the Department’s review of the Chair. The Voting Faculty, operating through a three-member elected ad hoc Chair Review Committee, shall review the performance of the Chair during the Fall Semester of the third year of his/her appointment and every three years thereafter.

A review of the Chair cannot be initiated in his/her first year as Chair. After one year, a review of the Chair can be called at any time by a petition of forty percent (40%) or more of the Voting Faculty to the Faculty Secretary. A new review cannot be initiated within one year of the date of the reporting of the results of a previous review.

The Chair Review Committee shall solicit input from the Voting Faculty using a confidential questionnaire, which shall include the question of faculty confidence in the Chair. This questionnaire must be initiated by the Chair Review Committee, and approved by a simple majority of the Voting Faculty that respond.

A vote of confidence by more than fifty percent (50%) of the Voting Faculty indicates satisfactory performance by the Chair and a recommendation by the Voting Faculty to the Dean for continuation of the six year term. A vote of no confidence by fifty percent (50%) or more of the Voting Faculty constitutes unsatisfactory performance and a recommendation by the Voting Faculty to the Dean for the Chair’s replacement.

The Chair Review Committee shall report the review results to the Voting Faculty. Additionally, both review results and comments shall be forwarded to the Chair and the Dean.

4.Term of Appointment

The Chair shall be appointed for term of six years. An additional six year term may be recommended to the Dean by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Voting Faculty.

IV. Tenure and Promotion Guidelines and Procedures

A. Introduction

The major responsibilities of the Department of Civil Engineering (herein referred to as the Department) in the College of Engineering (herein referred to as the College) are to provide the best possible education for its students, to encourage creative scholarship and research, and to furnish the best possible service to its larger constituency, the citizens of the State of Illinois. Fundamental to this responsibility is the recruitment and retention of competent faculty and the constant upgrading of that faculty through providing incentives and rewards for superior performance. University-accepted rewards in the academic world are promotion to higher ranks and the granting of tenure. Consequently, it is imperative that high standards for both be maintained if the Department and the College is to grow constantly in excellence.

In keeping with the Non-Discrimination Policy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the SIUC Faculty Association and the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, appointments and promotions will be determined entirely on the basis of a candidate's qualifications as outlined in this and other policy documents. Under no circumstances will appointments and promotions be affected by race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, age, veteran status, political affiliation, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, marital status or lawful political activity.

B.Rank at Appointment

New faculty members will normally be employed, based upon their qualifications, at the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor. Except under highly unusual circumstances, individuals lacking the doctoral degree will not be hired in one of the professorial ranks.

It shall not be the Department's policy to appoint a new faculty member to the rank to which he/she would not have been promoted had he/she already been on the staff, insofar as it is possible to determine the qualification of someone not previously employed by the University. Implicit in this understanding is the fact that, when time in rank is a factor for promotion, years spent in that rank in some other institution may be counted, provided it was a tenured or tenure-track position.

C. Promotion

Faculty members may be promoted to a higher academic rank based upon their demonstrated qualifications for that rank as evaluated by their peers, the Chair of the Department, the Academic Dean of the College and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost.

Promotion to higher rank is neither an unqualified right nor an automatic consequence of having completed a certain period of service. Rather, each academic rank represents certain qualifications, a certain level of competence, and a history of continued productivity over a period of years of the quality expected at that level, together with the promise of continued productivity.

D. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

Candidates for promotion and tenure will be judged on the basis of their performance in the areas of teaching, research and scholarly activities, and service as evaluated by their students, peers, and appropriate administrative officers. Evidence of performance is to be, to the extent possible, objective and documented.

Both because experience in the academic profession is of value in itself and because for promotion there should be evidence of continued excellence and productivity, minimum periods of service in one rank will be expected before promotion to the next. However, requirements for minimum service in one rank, and indeed other criteria, are not absolute and rigid. Exceptions may be made on the basis of exceptional circumstances. This allowance for exceptions does not mean, however, that all criteria will on occasion be ignored, or that an exception to one requirement is to serve as a precedent for future waiving of that requirement. An exception to one requirement, such as length of service, may be made on the basis of an extraordinary level of performance by an individual well above that which expected of another candidate who had completed the requisite years of service.

Part of a faculty member’s professional experience after obtaining an earned doctorate may be counted as time in rank if there is sufficient evidence to show that the faculty member’s professional experience is similar in nature to that of a tenure-track faculty position. It shall be the responsibility of the faculty member to adequately demonstrate that the experience is applicable. The maximum amount of time that can be credited as time in rank in this circumstance is two years.

1. Teaching

Since the first responsibility of the University is the education of its students, excellence in teaching should be continually encouraged and rewarded. No recommendations for promotion or tenure should be made without accompanying evidence of the candidate's effectiveness as a teacher. Evidence of classroom teaching performance must accompany any dossier under consideration.

The quality of a candidate’s teaching is demonstrated by a combination of classroom (student) evaluations, senior and graduate student evaluation, alumni evaluations, peer evaluations, and other activities in the general area of teaching. These evaluations are based on a rating scale of 1 to 5. While an absolute interpretation of meaning of such numerical scores is difficult and inappropriate in this document, some general guidelines may be stated. The class level (100, 200 etc.), size and other factors such as the type of class (e.g. design or analytical) and whether the class is required or an elective should be considered in interpreting numerical results of student evaluations. In all cases the candidate may submit a written summary of what factors he/she considers relevant to the evaluation scores. The Chair or his/her designate is charged with the responsibility of administering all the evaluations listed above.

Student evaluations must be conducted in all classes. For promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor all student evaluations must be included in the promotion dossier. Student evaluations refer to the standard University Instructor and Course Evaluations (ICE’s) or an alternative form approved by the Voting Faculty of the department. If the standard University ICE’s are used the average score scores for the first 20 questions on the ICE will be used. For promotion from Associate Professor to Professor a minimum number of student evaluations must be included. This minimum number may be all student evaluations for the last five years or all student evaluations since the promotion or appointment to the rank of Associate Professor, whichever is preferred by the candidate.

a.To demonstrate effective teaching, student evaluations should have an average score of 3.0 or higher for ICE evaluations. Other evidence such as senior, graduate student, alumni, and peer evaluations should be should be considered where appropriate. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to provide copies of the printouts of his/her ICE results to the Chair for inclusion in the dossier. Additionally, the candidate must have also shown some interest in developing or improving as an educator. This interest may be demonstrated by some participation in one or more of the activities related to teaching listed elsewhere in this section (assessment, course development, etc)

b.Superior teaching implies that the candidate exceeds all of the criteria for effective teaching. The expected numerical values for evaluations are higher. To demonstrate superior teaching, student evaluations should have average scores of 3.8 on the ICE's. Other evidence such as senior, graduate student, alumni, and peer evaluations should also demonstrate superior teaching. Additionally, the candidate must have also shown significant interest in developing or improving as an educator. The candidate must have shown a significant level of activity in more than one of the activities related to teaching listed elsewhere in this section (assessment, course development, etc).

c.The following items should also be considered in evaluating a faculty member's teaching

Evaluation by faculty colleagues and external peers. Faculty colleagues and peers should be asked to evaluate, over a reasonable period of time, the objectives, methods and materials of courses designed and/or taught by the faculty member. The peer review of a candidate's teaching performance shall be carried out independent of the I.C.E.'s prepared by students.
Colleagues who have observed classes and/or seminars taught by the individual should elaborate on the effectiveness of his/her teaching.
Evaluation by the Chair.

d.Evidence of contributions in teaching outside the classroom may also be considered in promotion and tenure decisions. Examples of this type of activity may include:

Curriculum and new course development
Effective participation in Departmental, College, or University programs of an instructional nature, such as the Scholars Program, public lectures, seminars, non-credit student learning programs and continuing education programs.
Preparation of textbooks, laboratory manuals, published class notes, and computer software used for instruction, or development of Internet and/or multimedia based instructional materials.
Efforts, beyond the average expected of all faculty members, in the areas of assessment and/or accreditation.
Effective guidance, counseling, mentoring, and/or academic advising of students.
Serving as chair (major advisor) of Ph.D. dissertations, M.S. Theses, and non-thesis Master’s Students.
Serving on the graduate committee for Ph.D. dissertations, M.S. Theses, and non-thesis Master’s Students.
Submission of educational proposals to external agencies or to units within the University
Receipt of educational grants from external agencies. Peer-reviewed grants from nationally recognized funding agencies should receive the highest ranking.
Receipt of educational grants from units within the University.
Attendance at workshops or seminars relating to improving teaching methods.
Guiding independent study courses.
Effective supervision of research projects which are intended in part to educate undergraduate students in research techniques.
Coordinating multi-section courses.
Teaching awards.
Consulting activities

2. Research and Scholarly Activities

Ideally, the university professor is a teacher/scholar, communicating knowledge and adding new knowledge through research. Research should contribute to the faculty member's teaching, and allied to this, research is the training of advanced students in research techniques. As a publicly supported institution, the College should consciously direct a significant portion of its research effort toward helping to solve the economic and social problems of the nation through basic and applied research.

The quality of a candidate’s research and scholarly activity is demonstrated by a combination of activities. These activities must include technical work in the faculty member’s area of expertise. The items that will be used to judge the research productivity (quality and quantity) of a faculty member include peer-reviewed journal articles, peer-reviewed conference papers (presentations and published proceedings), external and internal proposals, completion of M.S. theses and/or Ph.D. dissertations under the faculty member’s direct supervision, and non-peer-reviewed papers and/or presentations. While actually receiving external and/or internal research support is not a requirement, the success of the candidate in attracting such support will be considered as a factor evaluating his/her research productivity. It is the responsibility of the candidate to show that the journal or conference has a peer review procedure.

Scholarly activity includes items that are not directly related to research in the faculty member’s technical area of expertise. These activities may include such items as authoring a textbook or a chapter in a textbook. An outstanding textbook can give a faculty member national recognition. In many cases, engineering undergraduate and graduate textbooks contain state-of-the-art material. Scholarly activity also includes activities in the area engineering education such as peer-reviewed journal articles, peer-reviewed conference papers (presentations and published proceedings), external and internal proposals relating to engineering education, the success of the candidate in attracting external and internal support, and non- peer-reviewed papers and/or presentations. Also included are equipment grants. It is also possible for an engineer to demonstrate or creative activity through the design process as demonstrated by the patents of a device in a faculty member's field of expertise. As with research, it is the responsibility of the candidate to show that the journal or conference has a peer review procedure.

In the evaluation of scholarship/research, quality is of greater value than quantity. The judgment of quality can best be accomplished by experts in the candidate's field. It is desirable to obtain evidence of quality from observers outside the University. Evaluation of the quality of research and scholarly activity involves much more than a count of publications. It is the joint responsibility of the candidate, peers in his/her field, and the Chair to determine if quality exists. A candidate for promotion should provide a complete file of research and scholarly activities for evaluation. This should include copies of all publications, proposals, and patents. If a publication is peer-reviewed (refereed), there should be proof of this available to those charged with evaluation of the dossier. Senior (first) authorship on all publications shall be given greater credit than second authorship. It is to be recognized, however, that when a student performs the writing and the research and is first author that the senior author is the faculty member even though that name is not the first listed author. In the case of co-authored papers, a statement of the nature of each individual's contribution should be given, even if the candidate is listed as the first author.

Due to the time constraints involved in the promotion from assistant to associate professor, and the overall maturation of a faculty member’s professional career; different standards are applicable in judging a candidate’s research and scholarly activity for this promotion than are used in judging a candidate’s research and scholarly activity for promotion to the rank of professor.

Effective research and scholarly activity implies that the candidate has been the primary (first) author of some technical journal articles published in appropriate high quality peer-reviewed journals in his or her field of expertise. Joint authorship of papers is also a factor in demonstrating effective research, but some independent activity as shown by primary authorship of journal papers is considered mandatory. Technical papers that are presented at conferences and/or appear in published conference proceedings are also evidence of effective research, with higher value being placed on peer-reviewed items. The quality of the work will be considered as well as the quantity or number of publications. Additionally evidence of some efforts (typically demonstrated by proposal submissions) to obtain internal and external funding support for research activities is also required. The completion of at least one M.S. thesis or Ph.D. dissertation under the faculty member’s direct supervision is also expected. Additional evidence of other scholarly activity may be used to supplement the items listed above, with higher value being placed on peer-reviewed items.
For promotion to the rank of associate professor, superior research and scholarly activity implies that the candidate exceeds all of the criteria for effective research and scholarly activity. In addition, number (quantity) and/or quality of the publications is expected to be higher than that required for effective research and scholarly activity status. Evidence of more independent activity as shown by primary authorship of journal papers is required than is needed to demonstrate effective status in this area. Significant efforts to obtain internal and external funding support for research activities are also required. The number and quality of proposal submissions demonstrate such efforts. While actually receiving external research support is not a requirement, the success of the candidate in attracting external support will be considered as a very positive factor in demonstrating superior research status. The completion of two or more M.S. theses and/or Ph.D. dissertations under the faculty member’s direction is also expected for superior research. Additional evidence of scholarly activity may be used to supplement the items listed above, with higher value being placed on peer-reviewed items.
For promotion to the rank of professor, superior research and scholarly activity implies that the candidate has a sustained record of activities in this area since their last promotion. This record must include primary (first) authorship of some technical journal articles published in appropriate high quality peer-reviewed journals in his or her field of expertise. It can also include joint authorship of technical journal articles published in such journals in his or her field of expertise. Technical papers that are presented at conferences and/or appear in published conference proceedings are also evidence of the quality of the research, with higher value being placed on peer-reviewed items. Evidence of a significant level of sustained efforts to obtain internal and external funding support for research activities is also required. The number and quality of proposal submissions demonstrate such efforts. While actually receiving external research support is not a requirement, the success of the candidate in attracting external and/or internal support will be considered as a very positive factor in demonstrating superior research status. The completion of three or more M.S. theses and/or Ph.D. dissertations under the faculty member’s direct supervision since the last promotion is also expected. Evidence that these theses or dissertations have directly lead to peer-reviewed journal publications is highly desirable. Additional evidence of scholarly activity (as previously described) may also be used to demonstrate superior research and scholarly activity.

3. Service

a. All Voting Faculty are expected to serve on Departmental, College and University committees. Activities such as articulation with community colleges, and assisting with administrative tasks are considered normal duties. It is the Chair's responsibility to see that these duties are shared among Departmental faculty. Examples of service beyond normal duties may include:

Non-routine service to the University, such as playing a major role in large projects of University development, furnishing continuing leadership to student and/or faculty organizations (honor societies, advising the ASCE Student Chapter, etc.), serving as a major adviser in continuing academic counseling programs, working with academic recruitment programs or taking part in other activities which enhance the excellence of the University or the quality of life of students and faculty. The distinguishing factor in such service is the commitment on the individual's part of a significant amount of time and effort to meaningful and valuable projects of a generally academic nature.
Service to one's discipline, such as holding office in national, regional, or state professional organizations; service with accreditation teams or other evaluation committees; editorial service with scholarly journals; organizing or chairing sessions at technical conference; and serving on panels which evaluate research proposals for federal grants. Such service should be on a scale such as to bring significant recognition to the individual and the institution.
Service which makes the facilities and the expertise of the University available to the larger society of which it is a part. Such service may be formally organized through research and service bureaus; or it may be less formally provided for through Departmental or College programs that require participation in providing various learning experience in non-traditional formats. Because criteria of this sort are difficult to define, nominations for promotions depending heavily on these criteria should provide ample evidence of such service and should also suggest methods of evaluation.

E. Requirements for Appointment at the Rank of Assistant Professor

1. The applicant must have an earned degree of Bachelor of Science or its equivalent in Civil Engineering or a related field.

2.The applicant must have an earned doctorate in Civil Engineering or a related field.

3. Evidence that the individual is qualified to carry out the duties and responsibilities as a Departmental member and as a faculty member in the College and University. Prior professional experience is desirable

F. Requirements for Promotion to or Appointment at the Rank of Associate Professor

1.The nominee should previously have met all requirements for the rank of Assistant Professor.

2. In addition the nominee should meet the following requirements as well:

At least four years of academic experience in the rank of Assistant Professor in a tenure-track position from the date of appointment. Time spent on leave or in rank at another institution may be counted if there reason to believe that the faculty member's experience was similar to that of a tenure-track position.
Evidence of superior performance in teaching and/or research.
Evidence of at least effective performance in the area(s) other than the one(s) where superior performance is claimed under item 2b with evidence indicating that the faculty member is developing a substantial record as a teacher, researcher and scholar.

G. Requirements for Promotion to or Appointment at the Rank of Professor

The highest rank to which one may be promoted is that of Professor. Possession of this rank should indicate that the individual has a distinguished professional record in the areas of teaching, research and scholarly activities and has demonstrated continuous growth in his/her discipline. The candidate should have achieved recognition on a national or international scale and show promise of continued significant productivity.

The nominee should previously have met all requirements for the rank of Associate Professor, and should meet the following requirements as well:

At least four years of experience in the rank of Associate Professor from the date of appointment or submission of dossier for promotion to Associate Professor. Time spent on leave or in rank at another institution may be counted as indicated in the requirements for Associate Professor.
Demonstrated continued growth and a cumulative record of superior teaching evidenced by contributions to teaching both inside and outside the classroom.
Demonstrated continued growth and a cumulative record of superior research and scholarship.
Service of a superior nature, usually of such kind as to make the individual nationally known in his/her discipline, or alternatively as a leading figure in service efforts promoted by the institution itself.

H. Requirements for Tenure

For all ranks, professional license in the area of practice obtained in the U.S. or its possessions is required for tenure.

1.Assistant Professor

The nominee should meet all the requirements for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. At the end of a six-year probationary period, an Assistant Professor must be notified in writing either that promotion with tenure has been awarded or that the appointment will not be renewed at the end of the seventh year.

2.Associate Professor

The nominee should demonstrate continued growth as a scholar, researcher, and teacher.At the end of a four-year probationary period, an Associate Professor must be notified in writing either that tenure has been awarded or that the appointment will not be renewed at the end of the fifth year.

3.Professor

Appointment to the rank of Professor carries with it automatic tenure.

I. The Tenure and Promotion Procedure

1. The Chair is responsible for forwarding, by November 15 of each year, to the College Dean recommendations for tenure or promotion originating in the department. The recommendation dossier will include data supplying evidence that the faculty member meets the minimal criteria expected for consideration for tenure and/or promotion, the results of internal and external peer evaluations, the Chair's own evaluation, and such other material as may be indicated by Departmental or College policy. (Instructions providing a format for the organization of data may be obtained from the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost or from the Human Resources Office.)

2. There shall be a formal vote of appropriate; members for the formal vote for promotion of an individual to Professor shall include all Professors who hold tenured appointments; and for promotion of an individual to Associate Professor it shall include all Professors and Associate Professors who hold tenured and tenure-track appointments. However, for a tenure decision all tenured faculty (excluding the Chair) shall have an opportunity to vote and only tenured faculty should vote on the decision. The formal tenure/promotion dossier, once completed by the inclusion of all required materials, letters of evaluations by peers and all other supporting materials deemed essential for the proper review of the candidate's work is then made available for review by the appropriate Faculty members of the Department for the sole purpose of the ballot vote in which they will indicate their approval or disapproval of the candidate's tenure/promotion.

3. The tenure/promotion vote by the appropriate Faculty will not be confidential; the vote of each individual appropriate Faculty will be disclosed to the candidate and included in the dossier. All internal and external peer evaluations included, or referred to, in the dossier will bein unredacted form identifying by name the individual(s) submitting such evaluations.

4. If there are fewer than three appropriate Faculty members for any promotion decision, then additional Faculty members from other engineering departments of the College will be selected to bring the total number of appropriate Faculty reviewers to three, including those in the department and those selected from other departments. The candidate has the right to submit a list of at least three Faculty members from other departments of the appropriate rank to the Chair for consideration. The Chair shall select the additional reviewers from other departments from this list. In the event that a sufficient number of people cannot be selected from the candidate’s list, the candidate will be asked to submit additional names. No outside reviewer may be selected without the consent of the candidate.

5. The Chair, in transmitting to the Dean his/her independent recommendation, must indicate the vote of the "appropriate faculty members" and give a summary of the procedures followed during the evaluation process.The identification of qualified persons outside SIUC and who are familiar with the work of the candidate is carried out in consultation and mutual approval with the candidate. All solicited evaluations should be included in the dossier so that review bodies may have access to all relevant information.

6. The recommendation of the Chair shall be reported to the appropriate faculty of the Department and a copy of the Chair's letter of recommendation shall be provided to the candidate.

7. Candidates may comment on the Chair’s letter and include his/her response in the dossier before forwarding to the College Dean.

V. Merit Increase Plan

A. General Principles

1. The merit raise for each faculty member will be calculated on a three year rolling average. That is the performance of the faculty over the previous three years will be considered in making merit raise decisions. This procedure will help to even out the compensation that a faculty member receives, since there generally is not the same amount available for merit raises each year.

2.In the event a faculty member has not been employed at SIUC for the previous three years, then his or her performance will be averaged since the time of appointment.

3.The basic philosophy of this document is that the average performance in the department should receive the average merit raise. All merit raise calculations are done based on a percentage of the salary.

4.Merit raises will be based on the assigned duties of a faculty member. Thus, if the negotiated role for a particular faculty member were Teaching=60%, Research & Scholarship=30%, and Service=10%, the merit raise will be weighted accordingly.

B. CE Faculty Salary Increase Guidelines

1. All Faculty members on continuing nine-month, tenure, or tenure-track appointments; including those on sabbatical, leave without pay, and professional development leave; will be considered for merit pay based on relative performance and productivity.

2. It shall be the responsibility of the Department Chair to meet with each faculty member to determine the faculty member's assignment for the coming year. This meeting shall produce a written record of that assignment and this written record shall be clearly reflected in the annual staff statistical report. If the circumstances during the year significantly change the assignment, a written communication to the faculty member shall reflect this change in assignment.

3.Each faculty member shall submit by February 1 of each year an update of performance for the previous calendar year, or from date of employment for new faculty. This update shall consist of a statement of accomplishments in the area of teaching, research, and service.

4.The Department Chair shall evaluate each faculty member according to the departmental standards and criteria, and by the procedures described herein which have been agreed upon by the Department.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the Department Chair to recommend to the Dean salary increments for all faculty members in the Department. The Department Chair shall use as a basis for judgment the agreed-upon performance assignment and the standards and criteria described herein.

6. The Department Chair shall meet with each individual faculty member and provide that faculty member with a performance evaluation in writing before making the final recommendations to the Dean. Ranking relative to other faculty members shall be provided to all faculty members. The process leading to the relative ranking of all Faculty must be prepared by the Chair, while protecting the confidentiality of the Faculty.

7. Relative performance and productivity will be assessed and used in the areas of (a) teaching, (b) research and scholarly activities, and (c) service, as described below. Weights assigned to each of these areas will be proportional to the previously agreed upon load assignment of the faculty member in each of the three areas.

C. CE Faculty Performance Evaluation: Criteria

All publications, presentations, and grant awards should be counted only in the year in which a paper appears in print, the presentation is made, or the grant is awarded. Credit for work accepted in one calendar year and appearing the next year will be given during the second year. Senior (first) authorship on all publications and grant proposals shall be given greater credit than second authorship. It is to be recognized, however, that when a student performs the writing and the research and is first author that the senior author is the faculty member even though that name is not the first listed author. Some items such as textbooks and educational proposals, grants and papers are listed under both teaching and research and scholarly activities. Such items may be counted in only one category. It is up to the faculty member to clearly designate under which area these items should be counted.

1.Teaching

Evaluation of teaching will be made by considering the information listed below--not necessarily in preference order:

a.Classroom instruction

Individual course evaluations (ICE) or another departmentally approved evaluation form for all courses. The average score of the first twenty questions of the ICE will be used for the evaluation. Consideration shall be given to class size and the level of the class.
The survey of graduating seniors majoring in CE on the teaching performance of departmental faculty. This survey shall be conducted near the end of the Fall and Spring semesters by the Department Chair or his/her designate.
The survey of departmental graduate students who are graduating with M.S. or Ph.D. degrees on the teaching performance of departmental faculty. This survey shall be conducted near the end of the Fall and Spring semesters by the Department Chair or his/her designate.

b.Other Evidence

Curriculum and new course development
Effective participation in Departmental, College, or University programs of an instructional nature, such as the Scholars Program, public lectures, seminars, non-credit student learning programs and continuing education programs.
Preparation of textbooks, laboratory manuals, published class notes, and computer software used for instruction, or development of Internet and/or multimedia based instructional materials.
Efforts, beyond the average expected of all faculty members, in the areas of assessment and/or accreditation.
Effective guidance, counseling, mentoring, and/or academic advising of students.
Serving as chair (major advisor) of Ph.D. dissertations, M.S. Theses, and non-thesis Master’s Students.
Serving on the graduate committee for Ph.D. dissertations, M.S. Theses, and non-thesis Master’s Students.
Submission of educational proposals to external agencies or to units within the University
Receipt of educational grants from external agencies. Peer-reviewed grants from nationally recognized funding agencies should receive the highest ranking.
Receipt of educational grants from units within the University.
Attendance at workshops or seminars relating to improving teaching methods.
Guiding independent study courses.
Effective supervision of research projects which are intended in part to educate undergraduate students in research techniques.
Coordinating multi-section courses.
Teaching awards.
Consulting activities

2.Research and Scholarly Activity

Evaluation of research and scholarly activity will be made by considering the information listed below--not necessarily in preference order:

a.Scholarly Activity

Publications of educational articles in peer-reviewed journals. Publications in journals of exceptional quality shall be given more weight.
Publication of books or chapter(s) of books in the faculty member's field of expertise.
Submission of educational proposals to external agencies.
Submission of educational proposals to units within the University
Receipt of educational grants from external agencies. Peer-reviewed grants from nationally recognized funding agencies should receive the highest ranking.
Receipt of educational grants from units within the University.
Publications of full length papers relating to engineering education in peer-reviewed conference proceedings.
Paper (relating to engineering education) presentations at conferences.
Formal review/discussion of technical books and articles.
On-going funded educational research project(s).

b.Research

Publications of technical articles in peer-reviewed journals. Publications in journals of exceptional quality shall be given more weight.
Publication of technical notes in peer-reviewed journals.
Invited presentation--with honoraria--of research papers at technical conferences.
Publications of full length research papers in peer-reviewed conference proceedings.
Paper presentations at technical conferences.
Master’s Theses or Ph.D. dissertations completed under the direct supervision of the faculty member.
Submission of research proposals to external agencies.
Submission of research proposals to units within the University.
Receipt of grants from external agencies. Peer-reviewed grants from nationally recognized funding agencies should receive the highest ranking.
Receipt of grants from units within the University.
Patents and project design awards.
On-going funded research project(s).

3.Service

Evaluation of service will be made by considering the factors listed below--not necessarily in preference order:

Officerships held, and Committee memberships at the International, National, State, or Regional level in Technical and/or Professional Societies.
Membership in Technical and/or Professional Societies.
Activities in support of Technical and/or Professional Societies
Being the Chair of University-wide, College-wide, Departmental, and Faculty Association committees.
Membership in University-wide, College-wide, and Departmental, and Faculty Association committees.
University, College or Faculty Association offices held such as Secretary of the Faculty, Faculty Senate, Graduate Council, Executive Offices in the Faculty Association, and College and Departmental Faculty Association Representatives.
Serving as the advisor to student organizations.
Session chairmanship at technical conferences organized at International/National/Regional level.
Active participation in the organization of International/ National/ Regional conferences in the faculty member's field of expertise.
Active involvement in student recruitment and/or retention activities.
Professional Licensure

D. CE Faculty Performance Evaluation: Standards

The merit evaluation system will involve six levels of performance. These are described as follows:

Exceptional Performance --This category is for those who present compelling evidence of excellence in the performance of their assigned duties and responsibilities. Performance at this level over a period of years would easily exceed all criteria established for superior performance in the promotion and tenure section of this operating paper.

Superior Performance --This category clearly involves a high quality of contribution. Performance at this level over a period of years would meet all criteria established for superior performance in the promotion and tenure section of this operating paper. It is reserved for those whose performance has been sufficient to distinguish it from what is an expected level of quality in meeting assigned responsibilities.

Good Performance -- Performance at this level over a period of years would easily exceed all criteria established for effective performance in the promotion and tenure section of this operating paper. It is reserved for those whose performance exceeds what is an expected level of quality in meeting assigned responsibilities.

Effective Performance -- Performance at this level over a period of years would meet all criteria established for effective performance in the promotion and tenure section of this operating paper. This category reflects a performance level that would be expected for faculty in the Department of Civil Engineering. It describes an acceptable execution of assigned duties and responsibilities.

Below Average --Those performing at this level have demonstrated shortcomings in fulfilling the expectations and requirements in assigned duties and responsibilities. This category is for those failing to provide evidence of at least an effective level of performance in some areas.

Poor --Those performing at this level have demonstrated a serious shortcoming in fulfilling the requirements in assigned duties and responsibilities. This category is for those failing to provide evidence of at least an adequate level of performance. Faculty who receive this evaluation should be aware of a deficiency in their performance.

E. CE Faculty Performance Evaluation: Procedures

1.The following procedures are designed to standardize annual faculty performance evaluations and merit salary distribution. Implementation of these procedures is the responsibility of the Chair of the Department. New faculty members' first evaluation may be for a period of less than one year.

The annual review period will be January 1 to December 31.
The review will take place every year, regardless of the availability of merit pay monies.
Each faculty member will receive a formal, written evaluation from the Chair.
The evaluation will focus on the faculty members assigned duties and responsibilities for the review period. These duties and responsibilities will be put in writing and reflected in the statistical reports prepared by the Chair and signed by the faculty member.
Faculty will be responsible for submitting an annual achievement report by February 1 of each year. This document will be used for department and college achievement and planning report purposes in addition to merit review decision. Additional information may be appended as determined by the faculty member. It is the faculty member's responsibility to complete this document in a timely manner.
It is the Chair's responsibility to gather additional information pertinent to the evaluation of teaching, research and scholarly activities, and service components of the faculty member's performance.
Faculty members who disagree with the evaluation of their performance may appeal it in accordance with established grievance procedures.

2.CE Faculty Performance Evaluation: Rating Scale

a.Each year, an evaluation of faculty performance in all three areas--teaching, research and scholarly activities, service--will be made on a five-point rating scale as follows:

5 Exceptional Performance
4 Superior Performance
3 Good Performance
2 Effective Performance
1 Below Average Performance
0 Poor Performance

b.Weights for the teaching, scholarship/research and service areas will be based on the percent of effort agreed upon for each of these areas for this evaluation period. Weights will be decimal numbers and must add up to 100. Thus, if the negotiated role for a particular faculty member were teaching=60%, research and scholarly activities =30%, and service=10%, the corresponding weights would be 0.60, 0.30, and 0.10.

c.An annual Merit Point Index (MPI) will be computed for each faculty member by multiplying the evaluation ratings for each area by their corresponding weights and summing over all three areas. For example, evaluation rating of Teaching=5, Research=2, Service=5 would result in the following annual MPI’s, depending upon one's assignment mix.

	Weight	Rating	MPI
If	Teaching =0.40	T = 5	MPI=(0.40x5 + 0.05x2 + 0.1x5) = 3.50
	Research = 0.50	R = 2
	Service = 0.10	S = 5
If	Teaching = 0.40	T = 5	MPI = 4.40
	Research = 0.20	R = 2
	Service = 0.40	S = 5

d.The MPI’s for each faculty member over the last three years will be averaged. As previously stated, if MPI’s are not available over a three-year period, the average of available MPI’s will be taken.

e.A mean value and a standard deviation for all the averaged MPI’s in the department will be calculated. Each faculty member will be assigned a standardized rating score = (Averaged MPI- Mean value of MPI’s)/standard deviation.

f.>The percentage raise for a faculty member will be computed by the following formula:

% raise = average % raise + 0.25 * standardized rating score *average % raise

The dollar amount raise for each faculty member will then be:

$raise = % raise * current salary

g.The numerical values of these raises will be adjusted so that the total dollar amount of the raises in the department matches the total available funds. The following formulas will be used:

h.Total raise for department = total of individual raises

Factor = Total money available/ Total raise for department

Actual $raise = raise (as calculated in section f) * factor

F. Other Considerations

1.This merit salary system shall be evaluated every third year.

2.This document applies only to Voting Faculty members.

The Merit Plan shall be implemented one year at a time, eventually having a three rolling average, once the Operating Paper is approved.

VI. Meetings And Committees

A. Meetings

1.Regular meetings shall be held monthly. Special meetings may be called at any time if the Chair deems it necessary, or upon petition by no fewer than one-third of the Faculty.

2.The Chair shall determine the time and location of all faculty meetings. The Chair shall call for a meeting by circulating its agenda to the Faculty at least 48 hours in advance.

3.The Chair shall preside over the meetings. No business shall take place at a Departmental Faculty meeting unless a simple majority of the Faculty is present. When petitioned, special meetings must be scheduled within five working days.

4.The Voting Faculty shall elect a Faculty Secretary at the beginning of each Fall semester.

It shall be the responsibility of the Faculty Secretary to take notes of all business conducted during all Faculty meetings.
The Faculty Secretary shall distribute the notes of the previous meeting, by electronic mail, to all Voting Faculty and the Chair no later than one week following the meeting.
In the event the Faculty Secretary cannot attend a Faculty meeting, a substitute Faculty Secretary shall be elected from those present for that meeting.

B. Committees of the Faculty of the Department

The Faculty of the Department shall act as a committee of the whole in matters under its consideration, with the following exceptions:

1.Ad-Hoc Committees

Ad-hoc committees charged with specific tasks can be established by either the Faculty - through a motion from the floor - or by the Chair of the Faculty. They shall exist for no more than an academic year and report to the Faculty and the Chair.

2.Standing Committees.

a. Standing Committees - Enumeration

The Departmental Faculty shall maintain five (5) standing committees:

The Curriculum Committee;

The Equipment and Computer Committee;

The Graduate Program Committee;

Assessment Committee;

Faculty Affairs Committee.

b.General Requirements for Committee Membership:

All Voting Faculty shall serve on at least one departmental standing committee unless on leave or on sabbatical. In the case of faculty on leave or on sabbatical, it is the option of the faculty member to serve on a committee.
Each Committee shall consist of three members of the Voting Faculty. Voting Faculty are eligible to serve on only two standing committees at a time.Voting Faculty will not be eligible to succeed themselves on the same standing committee.
The Department Chair shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of all standing committees.
Members of the standing committees shall serve a single term of three years.Each committee shall determine by lot one of its initial members to serve a one-year term and one to serve a two-year term. The person who serves the initial one-year term shall be eligible to succeed himself on that committee.
New members of the standing committees shall be elected by the Faculty in November of each year with new members to take office on the next January 15th.
The member of each committee who has served the longest shall serve as the committee Chair for that year.
Permanent vacancies that occur during the year shall be filled by electing someone to serve for the remainder of that term. Members that fill a term of one year or less shall be eligible to succeed themselves. Temporary vacancies, such as those due to sabbatical leave, can be filled for the length of time needed by an eligible interim member elected by the faculty.

c.Curriculum Committee Responsibilities

This committee shall review all proposed new course offerings and course modifications. All proposed changes shall be forwarded to the faculty with a positive or negative recommendation from the committee along with a list of reasons for the recommendation. The departmental faculty will have the right to approve or disapprove the recommendations of the curriculum committee.

This committee will also have the task of reviewing the class offerings of the department at least once every three years. They should report to the faculty about every course the department offers, and recommend that the course be retained in its present form, modified, or dropped. Such reports to the faculty should be made at least every sixth semester.

Additionally, this committee shall make a general review of the undergraduate and graduate curriculums at least every three years. This review will attempt to identify goals and directions for the Civil Engineering curriculum. It will include identifying new trends in the profession or additional areas that should be added to the curriculum as well as areas that should be de-emphasized. Such reports should be made at least every sixth semester.

It will also be the responsibility of this committee to collect materials relating to the curriculum for any accreditation (ABET) review or for the internal and external reviews that are conducted periodically.

d.Equipment and Computer Committee Responsibilities

This committee shall be responsible for creating and updating a prioritized plan for future equipment purchases to be made by the Department. This plan should be for the one-year, three-year, and five-year needs of the department. In creating these plans, the committee should carefully balance the needs of undergraduate instructional laboratories and research. The plans should be self-consistent, that is items appearing on the five-year plans should eventually appear on the three or one-year lists. The need for large cost items should be anticipated and planned for. These plans should allow some flexibility for the purchasing of smaller miscellaneous items as the need arises. Such needs are often impossible to predict on a long-term basis. Attempts should be made to project the amount of money that will be available for equipment each year based on the amounts spent in the previous years. These plans should be updated annually based on what equipment was purchased in the previous year and on any change in department goals and priorities.

These plans should reflect projected lifetimes for existing equipment and the need to replace obsolete items used in the instructional labs. Additionally, the committee should also prepare one-year and five-year plans for equipment maintenance, including projected costs. These plans should also be updated annually.

This committee shall also be responsible for creating and updating a prioritized plan for future purchases of computer hardware and software to be made by the Department. This plan should be for the one-year, three-year, and five-year needs of the Department. In creating these plans, the committee should carefully balance the needs of faculty, the departmental computer laboratory and research. The plans should be self-consistent, that is items appearing on the five-year plans should eventually appear on the three or one-year lists Additionally, the committee should also prepare one-year and five-year plans for the maintenance and upgrades of computer hardware and software, including projected costs. These plans should also be updated annually.

e. Graduate Program Committee Responsibilities

This committee shall be responsible for over-seeing all aspects of the department's graduate program. One of the responsibilities of this committee will be to recommend to the faculty admission standards for the graduate program. Items to be considered could include undergraduate grades, TOEFL scores, and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores. Furthermore, the committee shall review all applications for admission. The committee will make admission recommendations to the Department Chair periodically (at least once a semester) for all students who have applied for admission.

Another major area of responsibility for this committee will be to review the progress made toward the degree of each student currently enrolled in the graduate program. This review should ensure that all required forms are on file, that a reasonable amount of course work is being completed each semester, and that the student is making satisfactory progress in his or her thesis work. This committee should do all it can to ensure the prompt completion of graduate degree programs by all students.

The committee shall also assist the Department Chair in the recruitment of high quality graduate students in any way possible. In particular, a vigorous attempt to identify and recruit women and minority students should be made.

A final area of responsibility for this committee will be to advise the Department Chair on the awarding of graduate assistantships. The committee shall set fair and equitable standards to be used in the awarding of assistantships.

f.Assessment Committee Responsibilities

The assessment committee’s activity consists of coordinating, overseeing, and participating in several aspects of the assessment and accreditation process. These activities include (but are not limited to):

A continuing review of the educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the department, and recommendations to the faculty for any modification and/or improvement of the published “goals statement” for the academic program(s).
Continually reviewing an assessment plan for the department, and recommendations to the faculty for the modifications and improvements of this plan. The assessment plan shall state how the department plans to meet its stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes; how the department will measure or demonstrate its performance in meeting those stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes; and how it will use the assessment information to improve its performance in meeting its stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes.
The development of appropriate techniques, instruments, and methods to be used to gather the information needed to determine the extent that stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes are being met. These tools may include in-class or mail surveys and questionnaires for students, alumni and employers as well as many other instruments, techniques, and methods. Such instruments shall be presented and ultimately approved by a majority vote of the Faculty.
Developing a plan for the administering of the assessment instruments developed for the department. This may include the committee itself actually administering some or all of these instruments. The committee will also be responsible for coordinating and overseeing the actual administration of the assessment tools as prescribed by this plan.
Collecting, tabulating, and collating the results of the various assessment tools used by the department.
Interpreting the results of assessment and making recommendations to the faculty about curricular or other academic changes that should be implemented so that the department will better meet its stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes; or modifications to the stated educational goals, objectives, and expected outcomes.
Preparation of a formal report on the assessment process, results, and recommendations once a year. This report shall be presented to the faculty by October 1st of each year.

g.Faculty Affairs Committee

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall make recommendations concerning policy and procedures that affect the Faculty of the Department. This review shall be in the form of an annual report to the Chair and the Voting Faculty. It shall include, but is not limited to, the following issues:

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Voting Faculty regarding the format and content of instructional course evaluations used by the Department as well as the procedures used to administer the evaluations. If the Faculty Affairs Committee determines that the current University ICE form is inappropriate or inadequate they shall develop a form specifically for the Department and submit it to the Voting Faculty for review and adoption.

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Voting Faculty regarding the format and content of the merit pay increase forms used by the Department. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall annually review the merit salary increases and report to the Voting Faculty. The Faculty Affairs Committee shall annually review salary equity issues and make recommendations to the Chair and the Voting Faculty.

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall create a written plan for assigning summer teaching contracts. The Committee shall annually review the summer teaching appointments and make recommendations to the Chair and Voting Faculty.

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall annually review the Department Operating Paper and make recommendations to the Voting Faculty concerning any issues to be addressed by the Voting Faculty as a whole.

C. Selections of Departmental Representatives to College Committees

The selection of members to represent the Department in all standing committees of the College shall be by a majority vote of the Voting Faculty voting with a secret ballot.The order of election shall be determined by the Voting Faculty at the time of election.Voting Faculty cannot serve on more than one college committee.

VII. Amendments And Implementation

A. Amendment

1.Any change of this Operating Paper may be initiated by no fewer than two-fifths of the Voting Faculty.

2.For the first three years after the Operating Paper is approved, amendment to the Operating Paper must first be approved by a simple majority of the Voting Faculty who respond to a mail ballot. Such an amendment is then subject to approval by the Dean and the University Administration.

3.After this three year period, any change of this Operating Paper must first be approved by at least three-fifths of Voting Faculty who respond to a mail ballot. Any change of this Operating Paper - after approval by three-fifths of the Voting Faculty - is subject to approval by the Dean and the University Administration.

B. Implementation

This Operating Paper shall become effective:

Upon approval of over fifty percent of the Voting Faculty, and
Upon approval by administrative officers involved in its review.

Department Operating Paper | Civil and Environmental Engineering | SIU

SIU Quick Links

Contact Us

College of Engineering, Computing, Technology, and Mathematics

Faculty and Staff