College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures – Full List
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Creating or Changing College Policies and Procedures
(Draft Revision Date: January 25, 2022)
The Dean of the College of Engineering is ultimately responsible for establishing standard operating procedures which (a) describe how relevant University policies are put into action within the College, (b) outline steps to be taken, (c) delineate roles and responsibilities, and/or (d) indicate any applicable forms or documents to use. The Dean is also responsible for establishing College-level policies which may be needed to conduct its business. In the event of a conflict, current statements of University- or UA System-level policy contained in the Bylaws, Rules, official minutes, and other pronouncements of the Provost, President, Chancellor or Board of Trustees, or superseding law, shall prevail.
Proposed new or changes to existing College of Engineering policies or procedures can be formally suggested by any faculty or staff member in the College. All proposed new or changes to existing College-level policies or procedures must be submitted in writing to the Dean of the College of Engineering. The Dean or a representative of the Dean will work with the submitter to determine that the proposed change or new proposal is not contradictory to any policies or procedures set forth at the University- or UA System-level. The Dean will then seek input on the proposal from both the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) and the current faculty senators from the College of Engineering. Both the DAC and the faculty senators will be encouraged to seek input from their constituents. Only after reviewing feedback from these two groups, if provided in a timely manner, may the Dean of the College of Engineering decide to accept or reject the proposal.
College-level standard operating procedures, once finalized and approved by the Dean are disseminated to DAC and posted the College’s Standard Operating Procedures website.
College-level policies must undergo additional review and approval steps as outlined the University’s Policy Development and Management Policy which may be found the University’s Policy Index.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Requesting Access to College Facilities
(Draft Revision Date: January 25, 2022)
The College of Engineering manages keys and card access for the following buildings: H.M. Comer, South Engineering Research Center, North Engineering Research Center, Hardaway Hall, Machine Shop (a.k.a. Student Engineering Projects Building), and Bureau of Mines 2 (a.k.a. Hardaway Annex).
The College also manages keys and card access for its facilities within the following other buildings: Bevill Building, Bureau of Mines 4, Bureau of Mines 5 (a.k.a. the Foundry), Cyber Hall, and Paty Hall.
The College manages card access only for portions of the following other buildings: Science and Engineering Complex and Shelby Hall, which are managed by the College of Arts & Sciences. Keys for these are managed by and may be requested using a key request form through the College of Arts & Sciences.
Requesting Access
Access to most College of Engineering facilities is requested using the College of Engineering Access Request Form. Keys to Engineering facilities in the Science and Engineering Complex and Shelby Hall must be requested using Arts & Science’s Key Request Form.
The College’s Access Request Form is used to request key and card access for undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, visiting scholars, faculty, and staff. The form is designed to request access for one individual per request but may include multiple rooms per request. If a request is for a large number individuals who all need identical access, the requester may email a spreadsheet with the necessary information to support@eng.ua.edu. A properly formatted spreadsheet is available by contacting the Executive Director of Engineering Services or the Senior Associate Dean for Administration.
Automatic Building Access for Students to College of Engineering Buildings
All undergraduate and graduate students actively enrolled in and pursing a degree offered by the College of Engineering are automatically provided extended access to buildings managed by the College of Engineering. The extended building hours are as follows:
- Monday through Thursday – until 11:59PM (buildings are locked at 8:00PM)
- Friday – until 8:00PM (buildings are locked at 7:00PM)
- Saturday – 7:00AM-8:00PM (buildings are locked all day; automatic building access for students is suspended for game days in the fall)
- Sunday – 7:00AM-11:59PM (buildings are locked all day)
- Holidays – automatic building access for students is suspended for official UA holidays; all UA buildings are locked
Undergraduate students are not provided 24/7 exterior door access. Graduate students who are assigned an office in a CoE building are also provided 24/7 access to that building and may be provided 24/7 access to other buildings as needed for their research or other assigned duties.
Reporting Unexpected Lost Access
In the event card-swipe access is unexpectedly lost, email the individual’s name, CWID, and details of access (i.e., building, room, time access was attempted, last time access was known to work) to support@eng.ua.edu. During normal business hours and depending on the nature of the specific problem, lost access is typically restored within two hours or less. During off hours, response time is slower but typically within 24 hours.
Issuing Keys to Students
Students rarely need keys to exterior doors as all College of Engineering buildings have card-swipe access. Most student project areas, instructional areas, and research labs have card access. Keys can be issued to students, as needed, to areas that do not have card access.
It is important that the requester let the student know the following (a) the student is fully responsible for the key(s), and the key(s) may only be used for approved activities associated being issued the key(s); (b) the student must return the key(s) or have the key(s) reissued to them prior to the end of each term or academic year, or earlier if requested; (c) a fee of $100/key will be charged to the student’s UA account for failure to return key(s); (d) the student must immediately report if any key(s) is(are) lost, stolen, or damaged; (e) a fee of $100/per key will be charged to the student’s UA account for any lost, stolen, or damaged key(s); and (f) failure to pay any associated fees may result in non-issuance of grades or the student’s diploma.
Reporting Lost and Returning Keys
In the event of a lost key or if a key needs to be returned, email the individual’s name, CWID, and details of the (i.e., building, room) to support@eng.ua.edu.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Review and Approval of Proposed New Courses, New Academic Programs, and Substantive Changes to Existing Courses and Programs
(Draft Revision Date: January 28, 2022)
All proposals for new courses, programs, and curricula and for substantive changes to existing courses, programs, and curricula will be submitted by a Department Head or the Director of the Freshman Engineering Program (FEP) to the Associate Dean for Undergraduate and Graduate Programs for review. Substantive changes to existing courses, program, and curricula include, but are not limited to, changes to prerequisites or other requirements, outcomes or objectives, level or mode of instruction, cross- or slash listing, catalog descriptions, retention or graduation requirements, etc. It is recommended to contact the Associate Dean for Undergraduate and Graduate Program with any questions regarding proposals or if a proposed change would be considered substantive. After their initial review, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate and Graduate Programs will disseminate the proposal(s) with any supporting information to the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) for review prior and request the Dean to include a discussion of the proposal(s) on the agenda of a future meeting of the DAC. At the DAC meeting, the proposer will provide a brief overview of the proposal(s). Following the discussion, the DAC will then vote on the proposal(s), which may include requiring changes. If any required changes are deemed substantive and necessitates reconsideration by the proposing faculty, the vote can be deferred to a subsequent meeting of DAC.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Selecting Textbooks and Other Class Materials
(Draft Revision Date: January 28, 2022)
In accordance with The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook, each academic department and the Freshman Engineering Program (FEP) must have procedures defined for selecting textbooks and other class materials that students will be required to purchase. These procedures should be submitted to the Dean.
Each academic department and the FEP must have a Textbook Selection Committee, and the membership of the Committee should be reported to the Dean annually. This is, in part, to address the situation when a faculty member wants to use a textbook, lab manual, computer software or other materials from which the faculty member or any person or business associated with the faculty member’s family obtains direct financial gain. In such cases, the associated department head or FEP Coordinator is to report to the Dean the situation and refer the faculty member’s request to the appropriate Textbook Selection Committee. The Committee then reviews the request, considers the appropriateness of the materials and alternative materials, and then provides the faculty member, department head or FEP Coordinator, and the Dean the results of its review and decision. The Faculty Handbook allows the Committee’s decision to be effective for all semesters beginning in the next subsequent 12 months; the faculty member is expected to submit a new request if the faculty member wants to continue to use the materials beyond the 12-month period.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (Timeline)
(Draft Revision Date: January 28, 2022)
The College of Engineering, with the approval of the Provost, uses the following timeline for faculty members to apply for retention, tenure, and/or promotion. The timeline includes deadlines and denotes who is primarily responsible for each step. When any of the defined deadlines fall on a weekend or official University Holiday, the deadline may be extended to the next business day. Any other exceptions to the College’s timeline need to be approved by the Dean.
| No later than | Action |
|---|---|
| For all candidates applying for retention, tenure, and/or promotion | |
| May 15 | Candidate: Notify department head of intent to apply for retention, tenure and/or promotion in the upcoming year. |
| May 15 | Candidate: If applying for tenure or promotion, provide department head a dossier to be sent to external evaluators and names of potential external reviewers. |
| June 1 | Department head: Provide names of candidates intending to apply for retention, tenure and/or promotion to the dean. |
| June 1 | Department head: For those candidates applying for tenure and/or promotion, request letters from external reviewers. |
| August 16 *August 23 |
Candidate: Submit retention, tenure and/or promotion application to department head. *EXCEPTION – candidates starting August 1 must submit a retention application no later than August 23. |
| August 30 | College administrator: Verify candidate’s application includes letter of appointment, previous years reviews, and other administrative documents as appropriate. |
| September 1 | Department head: For those candidates applying for tenure and/or promotion, upload external review letters. |
| September 22 | Department committee: Submit reviews and recommendations for each candidate. |
| September 26 | Candidate: Submit response/rebuttal, if desired, to department committee’s review. |
| October 1 | Department committee: Submit response to candidate’s response/rebuttal and submit complete application to the department head. |
| October 8 | Department head: Submit reviews and recommendations for each candidate. |
| October 12 | Candidate: Submit response/rebuttal, if desired, to department head’s review. |
| October 15 | Department head: Submit response to candidate’s response/rebuttal and submit complete application to the college RTP administrator. |
| For candidates applying for Provost-level retention two-years prior to mandatory tenure review year, or applying for tenure and/or for promotion | |
| October 22 | College administrator: Submit all applications to the college RTP committee. |
| November 19 | College committee: Submit reviews and recommendations for each candidate. |
| November 23 | Candidate: Submit response/rebuttal, if desired, to college committee’s review. |
| December 1 | College committee: Submit response to candidate’s response/rebuttal and submits complete application to the dean. |
| January 21 | Dean: Submit review and recommendation for each candidate. |
| January 25 | Candidate: Submit response/rebuttal, if desired, to dean’s review. |
| February 1 | Dean: Submit response to candidate’s response/rebuttal and submit final review and recommendation for retention, tenure and/or promotion to OAA. |
| For candidates applying for standard retention (college-level review only) | |
| October 22 | College administrator: Submit applications to the dean. |
| January 21 | Dean: Submit review and recommendation for each candidate. |
| January 25 | Candidate: Submit response/rebuttal, if desired, to dean’s review. |
| February 1 | Dean: Submit response to candidate’s response/rebuttal and submit final review and recommendation for retention; if recommendation is not to retain, the candidate’s application is forwarded to OAA for review. |
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Applying for Retention, Tenure, and/or Promotion
(Draft Revision Date: January 28, 2021)
The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook defines the criteria and standards for awarding tenure and for promotion. The Faculty Handbook also defines the requirements and primary responsibility for preparing a retention, tenure, and/or promotion (RTP) dossier.
Dossiers are standardized and defined by templates that appear in Faculty Success (formerly Digital Measures and accessed through myBama) and are submitted following the College of Engineering’s RTP Timeline. It is the faculty member’s primary responsibility to prepare their dossier, which serves as a basis for recommendations and decisions regarding retention, tenure, and/or promotion. Certain data is automatically populated in the faculty member’s dossier using institutional data (e.g., courses taught, enrollment in courses, student opinion of instruction, proposals submitted, grant and contract awards, patents received, etc.). Faculty should review the auto-populated data. They may provide explanations for any data they feel to be inaccurate or incomplete as supplemental documents.
Faculty members applying for tenure are responsible for uploading all previous RTP reports and letters/memos from the department head, department and college RTP committees, and the dean. Faculty members should create and upload a single PDF of all previous reports and letters/memos for each specific category in chronological order (e.g., separate files for “Previous Department Chair Letters,” “Previous Department Committee Letters,” “Previous College Committee Letters,” and “Previous Dean Letters”). This allows easy review and reference by the current year’s reviewers. Annual Review letters completed annually in the spring by the faculty member’s department head are not to be included in RTP dossiers.
Faculty members will also upload their statements of philosophy on teaching and research. These statements should be based on the faculty member’s experiences and their future growth as an educator and researcher.
Faculty members may direct questions regarding their dossier or the RTP process to their Department Head or the Senior Associate Dean for Administration.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Tenure and Promotion Committee Selection
(Draft Revision Date: January 28, 2022)
(Current Title: Policy on Tenure and Promotion Committee Selection)
The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook limits participation on the college-level tenure and promotion committee to regular full-time tenured faculty members holding the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. The Faculty Handbook also mandates that each college must establish specific criteria and processes concerning the composition and formation of its committee for evaluating tenure and promotion.
The College of Engineering Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) Committee will consist of one representative from each academic department in the College (not one representative from each degree program). Each department will define its own process for determining its representative to the College RTP Committee. The Dean will convene the College RTP Committee and request they elect one of the departmental representatives to serve as chair of the Committee.
The College RTP Committee reviews, votes, and makes recommendations regarding faculty applications for promotion to the rank of full professor, and only those holding the rank of full professor may participate in the vote and recommendation for such applications. Therefore, departments are encouraged to consider electing a full professor as their representative.
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Recommending Retention, Tenure, and Promotion
(Draft Date: December 21, 2021)
-
Introduction
The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook provides the University’s policies and procedures associated with faculty appointments, reappointments, retention, tenure, and promotion. This document summarizes the procedures used in College of Engineering (CoE) for making recommendations for retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) by department RTP committees, department heads, the college RTP committee, and the dean. These procedures are consistent with the policies outlined in the Faculty Handbook; however, if any conflict between these procedures and the Faculty Handbook is identified, the Faculty Handbook will supersede the processes defined in this document.
-
Timeline for Application, Review, and Recommendation of Retention, Tenure, and Promotion
The CoE has established a timeline for probationary (tenure-track) faculty to apply for retention, tenure, and promotion and for tenured faculty to apply for promotion (see RTP Timeline), including notifying their department head of their intent to apply for retention, tenure, promotion, and, if the candidate chooses, for early tenure.
-
Recommending Retention, Tenure, and Promotion of Probationary Faculty
Progress towards tenure is reviewed annually for probationary faculty members up to and including in their mandatory tenure review year. The mandatory review year is established in each faculty member’s original letter of appointment and should be clearly referenced in the department RTP committee, department head, college RTP committee, and dean reviews and recommendations.
3.1 Referencing Time to Tenure
Reviews and recommendations should reference where candidates are in their probationary period with respect to candidates’ mandatory tenure review year and not candidates’ initial appointment year. That is, reviews and recommendations should be a “count down” to candidates’ mandatory tenure review year and not a “count up” from their original appointment year. For example, consider candidates with an initial appointment of August 16, 2020, and a mandatory tenure review year of AY 2025-26. In the AY 2021-22 review year, reviews and recommendations should state these candidates’ mandatory review year as AY 2021-22 and that the candidates are four years from their mandatory tenure review year of AY2025-26; recommendations should not state that the candidates are in their “second year.” This avoids any confusion if candidates are granted any extensions to their mandatory tenure review year (e.g., for the birth or adoption of a child).
File names used during the RTP review process should similarly avoid reference of any sort to their initial appointment year (e.g., in the example above, do not use “Second Year Review”). Rather, it is recommended that the AY during which the review is being conducted be used in the file names during the RTP review process (e.g., in the example above, the file name would reference AY2021-22).
3.2 Provost-Level Retention Review
A Provost-level retention review is required two years prior to the mandatory tenure review year (e.g., for candidates with a mandatory review year AY 2021-22, their mandatory Provost-level review would have occurred in AY 2019-20). A Provost-level retention review is required only one time. Therefore, there is no need to repeat a Provost-level retention review if candidates are granted any extensions to their mandatory tenure review year and a Provost-level retention review has already been completed.
3.3 Changes to Mandatory Tenure Review Year
Any extension to original a mandatory tenure review year must be approved by the Provost and clearly documented in candidates’ RTP dossiers. Candidates can choose to return to their original mandatory tenure review year, and this choice must be made and communicated to their department head no later than when they must notify their department head of their intent to apply for tenure in the upcoming year (see RTP Timeline). Candidates who choose to return to their original mandatory tenure review year must have their choice clearly documented in their RTP dossiers and, in such cases, candidates are not considered to be applying for early tenure.
3.4 Application for Early Tenure
If candidates choose to apply for tenure early, they must notify their department head of their intent according to the RTP Timeline. Candidates must also clearly state that they are applying for early tenure in their letter of application for tenure. The early application for tenure should also be clearly noted in the department RTP committee, department head, college RTP committee, and dean reviews and recommendations.
3.5 Recommended Format of Department and College RTP Committee Reports
To provide consistency for those who review department and college RTP committee reports, including the dean and the provost, it is recommended that a common report format be used by all RTP committees for their recommendations regarding the application for retention, tenure, and promotion by probationary faculty. A recommended format is provided in Attachment A.
-
Recommending Promotion of Tenured Faculty
Tenured faculty members choosing to apply for promotion should notify their department head as noted in the RTP Timeline.
4.1 Recommended Format of Department and College RTP Committee Reports
To provide consistency for those who review department and college RTP committee reports, including the dean and the provost, it is recommended that a common report format be used by all RTP committees for their recommendation regarding the application for promotion by tenured faculty. A recommended format is provided in Attachment B.
Attachment A
Attachment B
College of Engineering Standard Operating Procedures for Promoting Renewable Contract Faculty
(Draft Revision Date: January 29, 2022)
The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook provides the University’s criteria and standards for renewable contract appointments and reappointments, and for the promotion of renewable contract faculty, including the instructor and professor ranks.
Promotion of Renewable Contract Instructors
As defined in the Faculty Handbook, renewable contract instructors who are reappointed for a seventh year of service will be promoted to senior instructor in conjunction with their reappointment. Recommendations for the reappointment of renewable contract instructors are made by the department head or FEP Coordinator to the Dean, including those eligible for promotion to senior instructor with their reappointment.
Promotion of Renewable Contract Professor Ranks
Promotions for renewable contract faculty members holding professor ranks require submission of a dossier following the same process as tenure/tenure-track faculty, including following the College’s RTP Timeline. As defined in the Faculty Handbook, the faculty member’s dossier will include materials consistent with their appointment (i.e., evidence of effective teaching or research, and evidence of service at the Department, College, University, and/or professional levels). Department- and College-level reviews and recommendations for promotion should also focus on accomplishments in areas consistent with the faculty member’s appointment.