Skip to content Skip to main navigation Report an accessibility issue

Bylaws – School of Information Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Download SIS Bylaws as a PDF fileDecember 2019

Table of Contents

Preamble

Article I. Name

Article II. Purpose

Article III. Membership

  • Section 1. Definition
  • Section 2. Professional Conduct
  • Section 3. Rights and responsibilities

Article IV. Meetings

  • Section 1. Frequency
  • Section 2. Notice
  • Section 3. Agenda
  • Section 4. Order
  • Section 5. Special Meeting
  • Section 6. Decisions
  • Section 7. Quorum
  • Section 8. Minutes

Article V. School Committees

  • Section 1. Standing Committees
    1. Administrative Committee
    2. Assessment and Awards Committee
    3. Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee
    4. Tenure and Promotion Committee.
    5. Master’s Program Committee
    6. Undergraduate Program Committee
    7. Diversity and Inclusion Officer
    8. Director’s MSIS Student Advisory Council
    9. Director’s Research Advisory Council
  • Section 2. Committee Members
  • Section 3. Committee Chair
  • Section 4. Exception for Tenure and Promotion Committee
  • Section 5. Meeting
  • Section 6. Ex Officio
  • Section 7. AD HOC Committees

Article VI. College and University Committees

Article VII. Records and Reports

Article VIII. Policies and Procedures

  • Section 1. About Policies
  • Section 2. Workload Policy
    1. Criteria for Workload Expectations
    2. Guideline to Exceptions to Norms for Workload Expectations
  • Section 3.  Appointment to Faculty Rank
    1. Criteria
    2. Probationary Period
  • Section 3.1. Clinical Faculty
    1. Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Expectations
    2. Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Annual Performance Review
      Calendar
    3. Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor Rank
    4. Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Promotion to Clinical Professor Rank
    5. Promotion Review Process
  • Section 4. Mentoring shall be provided to tenure-track faculty members
    1. Assignment of Mentor
    2. Mentor-Mentee Relationship
    3. Mentor’s role in performance evaluation
  • Section 5. Faculty Review
    1. Examples of Research/Creative Activity
    2. Calendar
    3. Retention Review
    4. Annual Performance Review
    5. Tenure and Promotion Review
    6. Cumulative Performance Review
    7. Peer Teaching Assessment Policy

Article IX. Amendments

Article X. Revision Notes


Preamble

These Bylaws are instituted by the School of Information Sciences as directed by the College of Communication and Information. The school’s Bylaws are supplemental to the College Bylaws, the Faculty Handbook and the Manual for Faculty Evaluation, and the regulations of the University in general; in the event of conflict, the latter will prevail.

Article I. Name

The name of this organization shall be the School of Information Sciences, College of Communication and Information, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Article III. Membership

Section 1. Definition

The School of Information Sciences’ faculty includes all full-time appointments with the rank of lecturer and higher. Hereafter, they shall be referred to in the Bylaws as “the Faculty.”

Section 2. Professional Conduct

Within the School of Information Sciences, faculty members treat colleagues, staff, and students with respect and fairness. They listen to the views of others, work constructively as members of the diverse academic community, and safeguard the recognition of achievements of others, including those in subordinate positions. Faculty honesty in financial and personal matters is expected. Beyond the School, individual faculty members are representatives to the wider community, which they treat with respect and fairness. See also the current Faculty Handbook for Professional Conduct (Section 2.2.5 in Faculty Handbook 2016) and Hilltopics for Principles of Civility.

Section 3. Rights and Responsibilities

The responsibility of the Faculty in departmental governance is to determine the shape of the academic programs and to advise the departmental administrators concerning administration of departmental programs.

Tenured and tenure-leading faculty vote on:

      1. Appointment and retention of both full-time and part-time faculty;
      2. Promotion of faculty and awarding of

The Faculty may vote on all matters not specifically noted above or not restricted by university policy.

Article IV. Meetings

Section 1. Frequency

Regular meetings of the Faculty shall be called by the Director or the Director’s designate and shall be held at least once each semester during the academic year.

Section 2. Notice

Notice of all Faculty meetings should be given at least one week before the date of the meeting. Whenever possible, specific recommendations of any committee should also be distributed to the Faculty one week prior to the meeting at which they are to be considered.

Section 3. Agenda

Agenda items for the Faculty meetings must be presented in writing to the Director at least three (3) days before the date of the meeting. Items may be added after this date by a majority vote of the faculty.

Section 4. Order

Faculty meetings shall be conducted according to the rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Section 5. Special Meeting

The Director may call a special meeting of the Faculty whenever deemed necessary or in response to a written request of at least one-third of the membership.

Section 6. Decisions

Decisions by the Faculty shall be determined by vote of the quorum.

Section 7. Quorum

Two-thirds of the faculty (but not including the Director) shall constitute a quorum. Absent faculty may vote by the means of written, signed statements or emailed messages given to the Director or chair of the relevant committee prior to the meeting, except in personnel matters.

Section 8. Minutes

Minutes of each faculty meeting shall be taken, approved by the Faculty, and preserved for future public availability, with draft copies distributed for review to each Faculty and staff member.

Article V. School Committees

Section 1. Standing Committees

A.  Administrative Committee

The Administrative Committee advises the Director. This committee helps formulate and implement departmental procedures and personnel matters not delegated to other committees or to the faculty at large. The committee shall help set School priorities by providing input to the Director on committee charges. This committee also assists with planning. In addition, the elected faculty representative brings forward to the Committee any issues that faculty would like discussed related to administration.

Membership: Director, Director of Graduate Studies, Director of Undergraduate Studies, and one additional tenured faculty member elected by the faculty who will serve a two-year term. This faculty member may not be elected to successive two-year terms, although this person might be elected to continue for an additional year in unusual circumstances.

B.  Assessment and Awards Committee

The assessment and awards committee is responsible for creating and maintaining processes for ongoing evaluation and assessment of the program, including learning outcomes. Responsibilities also include data analysis and reporting, and administration and management of capstone projects for the graduate (e.g., comprehensive exams, ePortfolio, thesis) and undergraduate programs. This committee will also manage the SIS student awards program, and advise and assist the Director with nominations of faculty, student and alumni for awards.

Membership: Chair (Director of SIS), at least three Faculty, Director of Graduate Studies (ex officio) and Director of Undergraduate Studies (ex officio)

Relation to CCI Committees: None, although work will inform annual reporting to CCI and UTK.

C.  Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee

The Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee reviews and recommends policies and procedures relating to workload equity, faculty evaluation, hiring and review of lecturers and adjunct professors, teaching issues (e.g.; team teaching, introducing new instructional technology), and faculty development/training needs and priorities. This committee will also assist CCI in managing IS PhD students and the program, including the admissions process. This committee will revise the SIS Bylaws when needed.

Membership: Chair and at least two other faculty; ideally, faculty from all ranks are represented, although depending on faculty size and rank distribution, this might not be possible.

Relation to CCI Committees: One or more members of this committee will serve on the CCI Faculty Affairs Committee, which has two tenured/tenure track faculty elected per School with 2-year terms staggered. One member of this committee will serve on the CCI Graduate Studies Committee, which has one tenured/tenure track faculty per School with a two-year term.

C.1.  Tenure-track Faculty Search Committee

shall consist of

      1. one chair who is a tenured senior faculty
      2. three additional faculty members of all ranks as possible
      3. one IS PhD student representative in good academic standing
      4. one MSIS student representative in good academic standing

The director shall appoint the search committee in consultation with the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee. The search committee will develop the description of the position in consultation with the director.

D.  Tenure and Promotion Committee

The Tenure and Promotion committee consists of tenured Faculty members in good standing with the University. This committee is called by the Director to review and recommend on tenure and promotion and faculty annual retention reviews for tenure-leading faculty. The Tenure and Promotion Committee consists of all tenured faculty for persons being considered for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor, and all full professors for persons being considered for promotion from associate professor to full professor. The chair of the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee serves as the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee.

E.  Master’s Program Committee

The Master’s Committee is responsible for assisting the Director of Graduate Studies in the administration and management of the MSIS program. This includes admissions, curriculum review and revision, and scholarship/GTA selection.

Membership: Chair (Director of Graduate Studies), at least three Faculty, Student Services Coordinator

Relation to CCI Committees: One member of this committee will serve on the CCI Graduate Studies Committee.

F.  Undergraduate Program Committee

The Undergraduate Committee is responsible for assisting the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the administration and management of the BS program. This includes curriculum development, review and revision, and any other routine activities that become instituted around this program (e.g., admissions, scholarships).

Membership: Chair (Director of Undergraduate Studies), at least two Faculty

Relation to CCI Committees: One member of this committee will serve on the CCI Undergraduate Committee.

G.  Diversity and Inclusion Officer

A single faculty will occupy this position in order to monitor and advocate for diversity and inclusion within SIS, CCI and UTK.

Appointment: The Director will ask for volunteers from the faculty. If there are no volunteers, the Director will appoint a faculty member. The appointment will be for a two-year period. A person can serve for a maximum of two consecutive terms.

Relation to CCI Committees: This person will serve on the CCI Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

H.  Director’s MSIS Student Advisory Council

The Director’s MSIS Student Advisory Council advises the Director on matters of concern to MSIS students and provides a forum to work with students on various initiatives and projects.

Membership: This council will consist of the leaders of the MSIS student organizations, the Director, and two additional MSIS students.

I.  Director’s Research Advisory Council

The Director’s Research Advisory Council advises the Director on how to promote and support research and scholarship within the school, including how to better enable and support student research. This council will work with the Director to plan research colloquium and other events that increase the School’s and College’s awareness of research in the field of the information sciences.

Membership: This council will consist of the director, two faculty, and the CCI Associate Dean of Research. The Director will ask for faculty volunteers to serve on this council. If there are no faculty volunteers, the Director will appoint faculty representatives. The service term is two years.

Relation to CCI Committees: When possible, at least one member of this council will serve on the CCI Research Advisory Committee.

Section 2. Committee Members

The Director shall appoint faculty and student members to the committees as appropriate.

Section 3. Committee Chair

The Director shall appoint the committee chairpersons.

Section 4. Exception for Tenure and Promotion Committee

With the exception of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, at the beginning of each academic year, the Director will provide the committee chairperson of each committee a written charge as a guide for committee activity.

Section 5. Meeting

With the exceptions of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and Advisory Councils, each committee shall meet at least once each semester during the academic year.

Section 6. Ex Officio

The Director or the Director’s representative shall serve as an ex officio member of each committee with the exception of tenure and promotion.

Section 7. AD HOC Committees

AD HOC Committees may be established by the Director as appropriate. The Director shall provide the chairperson of each ad hoc committee with a written charge as a guide for committee activity. The charge and committee membership shall be shared with the Faculty.

Article VI. College and University Committees

Faculty will participate in College and University committees according to the selection policy and procedure for those committees. In some cases, the Director will nominate individuals to serve in consultation with those individuals.

Article VII. Records and Reports

The recorder of each committee, standing and ad hoc, shall submit minutes of each meeting and an annual report to the Director and the SIS Communications Specialist who will be responsible for archiving.

Article VIII. Policies and Procedures

Section 1. About Policies

The Faculty, in consultation with the Director, shall adopt such policies and procedures as are necessary to insure the well-being of the School. These policies shall be consistent with those adopted by the University of Tennessee, including the Faculty Handbook, The Faculty Evaluation Manual, and the College of Communication and Information.

Section 2. Workload Policy

“The assigned workload for full-time faculty consists of a combination of teaching, advising, research/scholarship/creative activity, and/or public service” (section 3.7, Faculty Handbook). All faculty members (non-tenure, tenure-leading, and tenured) will negotiate workload expectations for the coming year (as specified in A2A) and review attainment of expectations for the previous year with the School Director during their annual performance review. Workload expectations are distinguished from retention, tenure, and promotion expectations which are discussed in section 5 of the SIS Bylaws.

A.  Criteria for Workload Expectations

The School complies with the College of Communication and Information Work Load Expectations policy, which states: “Criteria for what constitutes ‘day-to-day advising,’ a ‘unit’ of research/creative activity, and ‘service’ will be developed and approved by each school.” The workload policy is located at CCI Website.

A.1.  Teaching and “Day-to-Day” (Academic) Advising for SIS Faculty

For advising purposes, SIS students are distributed among the faculty by administrative staff, who strive to match specialization and interests of students with those of faculty members. SIS faculty routinely advise graduate students in person, via the telephone, and/or electronically in a timely manner.

SIS faculty teach in both distance and on-campus modes including weekday and evenings.

Faculty are encouraged to explore alternative scheduling opportunities as appropriate.

A.2.  Research/Creative Units

To meet workload expectations, the two research/creative units (outputs) per year per faculty member are required by the CCI Work Load expectations. As information science is an interdisciplinary field, there needs to be flexibility according to the subject discipline of the faculty member. SIS faculty are expected to complete the equivalent of two research publications per year. This might include peer reviewed journal articles, peer reviewed conference proceedings papers, peer reviewed and/or invited book chapters, proposals for externally funded major grants, textbooks or research monographs (a single monograph would be equivalent to multiple articles), technical reports, other articles, or creative activities. These are minimum workload expectations. For additional criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion, refer to Section 6.

Research goals are discussed with the Director and agreed upon yearly. These may vary with the research focus of each individual. Guidelines for the relative importance of specific types of research/creative activities are given below. The examples are illustrative and are not meant to be complete or exclusionary. These may vary with individual effort and will be negotiated individually with the Director in consultation with the faculty mentor.

A.3.  Service

Faculty service is integral to the School’s efforts to be recognized as a program of excellence internationally, nationally, and regionally.

Service on School, College, and/or University committees, including ad hoc and standing committees, is required of all faculty. In addition, faculty are expected to serve in various roles, such as: leadership in professional organizations or publications, engaging in community and academic outreach, and participating in faculty governance. Service participation may be in person and/or electronic, depending on the requirements of service. According to section 3.11. 4 in the current Faculty Handbook, “In most cases, tenure-track faculty should be encouraged to develop first as teachers and scholars, leaving serious involvement in service until after a sound academic record is established.”

B.  Guideline to Exceptions to Norms for Work Load Expectations

This document covers guidelines for faculty members who wish to negotiate an exception to the College of Communication and Information Work Load Expectations and SIS Criteria for Work Load Expectations.

Faculty members might negotiate an exception to the work load norms for several purposes. Personal necessity or illness are not included here because they are covered in the Faculty Handbook. Reasons for a temporary exception to work load norms include:

      • All tenure-leading faculty during their probationary period are entitled to one course release with the semester to be negotiated with the Director
      • Significant administrative responsibilities, not otherwise compensated
      • Elected president of a major professional association or serving as the editor a major professional periodical
      • Development of a new method of instruction or instructional delivery that will benefit the School and other faculty
      • Participation in a funded research project where funds are available for hiring adjuncts or serving as principal investigator on a major research grant
      • Semester banking or research leave as described in chapter 6 of the Faculty Handbook
      • Professional development needs and opportunities, especially when the faculty member has been asked to undertake notable new responsibilities
      • After supervising ten courses (30 hours) of any combination of THE FOLLOWING:
        1. 591 (independent study)
        2. 594 (research participation)
        3. 500 (thesis) up to 6 hours per student after their proposal has been defended
        4. 600 (dissertation) up to 12 hours per student after their proposal has been defended
      • Requests for exceptions should identify which of these reasons apply and provide a persuasive rationale to support the request. This written document should be given to the Director in advance of the academic year

The Director will consider the following when making a release time decision:

      • Professional development or the degree to which the alternate activity will make the faculty member more valuable to the School by adding needed skills and experiences
      • Curriculum needs or the degree to which alternative instructors may prepare and offer needed courses as well as a clear indication that failure to provide a course at a particular time would not be harmful to SIS students
      • Deliverable product or the degree to which the faculty member is likely to complete the alternative work in a timely manner and as promised
      • Financial resources or the degree to which resources are available to support the intended activity and to hire a replacement teacher if that is required, and
      • Visibility of the School or the degree to which the proposed activity will enhance the visibility and the reputation of the School

The Director will meet with the requesting faculty member to discuss the issues involved and will later provide a written response. If the release cannot be accommodated in the term requested, the Director must work with the faculty member to accommodate the request in the next academic year.

Section 3. Appointment to Faculty Rank

      1. Criteria

The school complies with the policy stated in the University of Tennessee Faculty Handbook. This document is accessible at the Provost’s Website, hereafter, referred to as the Handbook. The criteria for appointment of Tenure-Track Faculty are drawn from Section 3.2 of the Manual of Faculty Evaluation

B.  Probationary Period

A tenure-track faculty member must serve a probationary period prior to being considered for tenure. The probationary period at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, shall be no less than one and no more than seven academic years; however, for good cause, the president, upon the recommendation of the chancellor, may approve a probationary period of less than one academic year. If a faculty member has served in a tenure-track appointment at another institution, his or her total probationary service may extend beyond seven years. (For example, a person who has served five years elsewhere may be given a four-year probationary period at UTK. Except as provided below with respect to extensions for good cause, the probationary period at UTK will not exceed seven years.) The original appointment letter shall state the length of the faculty member’s probationary period and the academic year in which he or she must be considered for tenure if he or she has met the minimum eligibility requirements for consideration. The stipulation in the original appointment letter of the length of the probationary period and the year of mandatory tenure consideration does not guarantee retention until that time.”

For good cause related to procedural error, the university and a tenure-track faculty member may agree in writing to extend a seven-year probationary period for a maximum of two additional years. The proposed extension must be approved in advance by the chief academic officer, the chancellor, the president (or designee), and the General Counsel (or designee).” Faculty Handbook, section 3.11.3.1.

Section 3.1. Clinical Faculty Appointment of Clinical Faculty

A clinical faculty position is a non-tenure-track twelve months appointment. According to the Faculty Handbook, Section 4.1.3, Non-tenure-track clinical faculty are appointed to meet instructional needs and provide professional services. Department and college bylaws establish standards and procedures relating to searches for and promotion of clinical faculty. According to Section 4.2.3 of the current Handbook and Section III, Guidelines for the UTK Lecturer Promotion Process the following criteria are adopted for evaluating Non-Tenure-Track Faculty for purposes of hiring and retention.

Rights and Responsibilities

A clinical faculty member is entitled to serve on standing committees of the School, except for personnel matters (e.g., voting), and on dissertation or theses committees.

A.  Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Expectations

A.1.  Teaching

For a non-tenure track faculty member, teaching should not be less than 75% (3-4 courses per semester). In accordance with the Guidelines for the UTK Lecturer Promotion Process (October 2 2012 revision), non-tenure-track teaching faculty are expected to provide excellent instruction. Among the characteristics of excellent instruction are the following practices:

      • Adhering to the policies and procedures outlined in the University of Tennessee Teaching Guide;
      • Establishing, applying, and maintaining rigorous expectations for student performance;
      • Facilitating student learning through effective pedagogical techniques;
      • Using instructional materials appropriate to the program and discipline;
      • Providing current information and materials in the classroom and / or laboratory;
      • Engaging students in an active learning process;
      • Incorporating collaborative and experiential learning in online and regular classroom instruction;
      • Constructing appropriate and challenging assessment activities;
      • Providing timely and useful feedback to students;
      • Revising course content and scope as required by advances in disciplinary knowledge or changes in curriculum;
      • Revising teaching strategies in accord with innovations in instructional
      • Meeting the requirements for aligning with student learning outcomes identified by the department;
      • Outstanding evaluations documented in peer evaluations, annual supervisor departmental evaluations, and student SAIS
A.2.  Service

For a non-tenure track faculty member, service should not be less than 15% including administrative duties as assigned. Service should follow the same expectations in VIII, Section 2 of the Bylaws.

A.3.  Research

For a non-tenure-track faculty member research is not to exceed 10%; the output of research should be one unit per every two years on average, following the same quantitative and qualitative factors in VIII, Section 5 of the Bylaws.

A.4.  Professional Conduct

In accordance with III, Section 2 of the Bylaws, within the School, faculty members treat colleagues, staff, and students with respect and fairness. They listen to the views of others, work constructively as members of the diverse academic community, and safeguard the recognition of achievements of others, including those in subordinate positions. Faculty honesty in financial and personal matters is expected. Beyond the School, individual faculty members are representatives to the wider community, which they treat with respect and fairness. See also the current Faculty Handbook. Section 2.2.5 (Professional Conduct) and Hilltopics (Principles of Civility).

B.   Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Annual Performance Review

According to the Faculty Handbook (4.3), the performance of all non-tenure-track faculty members will be evaluated annually, with a written record of the evaluation maintained in departmental and human resources files. The annual performance review for retention should be based on the best practices guidelines for evaluating instruction, service, research, and professional conduct, which are outlined in the Manual for Faculty Evaluation (probationary faculty section) and in VIII, Section 5 of the Bylaws. The review includes teaching, service, research, and professional conduct. The responsibilities of the appointment document of an individual non- tenure-track clinical faculty member should guide the review.

In the case of non-retention, every effort should be made to notify the faculty member as soon as possible and in accordance with the Manual of Faculty Evaluation and the procedures outlined in Section 5, C of the Bylaws.

For a non-tenure track faculty member, service should not be below 15%. Service should follow the same expectations in VIII, Section 2, A.3 and Section 3.1, A.2 of the Bylaws.

B.1.  Teaching Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, teaching should not be less than 75% (3-4 courses per semester). In accordance with the Guidelines for the UTK Lecturer Promotion Process (October 2 2012 revision), non-tenure-track teaching faculty are expected to provide excellent instruction. Among the characteristics of excellent instruction are the following practices:

      • Adhering to the policies and procedures outlined in the University of Tennessee Teaching Guide;
      • Establishing, applying, and maintaining rigorous expectations for student performance;
      • Facilitating student learning through effective pedagogical techniques;
      • Using instructional materials appropriate to the program and discipline;
      • Providing current information and materials in the classroom and / or laboratory;
      • Engaging students in an active learning process;
      • Incorporating collaborative and experiential learning in online and regular classroom instruction;
      • Constructing appropriate and challenging assessment activities;
      • Providing timely and useful feedback to students;
      • Revising course content and scope as required by advances in disciplinary knowledge or changes in curriculum;
      • Revising teaching strategies in accord with innovations in instructional
      • Meeting the requirements for aligning with student learning outcomes identified by the department.
      • Outstanding evaluations documented in peer evaluations, annual supervisor departmental evaluations, and student SAIS evaluations;
B.2.  Service Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, service should not be less than 15%. Service should follow the same expectations in VIII, Section 2, A.3 and Section 3.1, A.2 of the Bylaws.

B.3.  Research Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, research is not to exceed 10%; the output of research should be one unit per every two years on average, following the same quantitative and qualitative factors in VIII, Section 5 and VIII, Section 3.1, A.3 of the Bylaws.

B.4.  Professional Conduct

Professional conduct is reviewed in accordance with III, Section 2 of the Bylaws and current Faculty Handbook section 2.2.5 (Professional Conduct) and Hilltopics (Principles of Civility).

Calendar

Faculty Evaluation Calendar is published at the Provost’s Website at the beginning of each academic year. Schedules and due dates for promotion review, annual reviews, and retention reviews are given in the calendar. The SIS Director will manage the evaluation process to ensure compliance with university’s deadlines. The time period being reviewed is defined in the Manual Part I for retention review and Part II for annual performance review. At the first faculty meeting in the fall semester, faculty evaluation policies and review procedures will be discussed and suggestions made. Special attention will be given to how to best characterize the unique contribution that an individual faculty member makes to the School. (Bylaws, VIII, Section 5, B). Retention reviews follow the same annual performance and procedures as tenured-leading faculty.

C.  Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor Rank

A non-tenure-track faculty member is eligible for promotion typically after a minimum of five years of regular (full-time) service at the rank.

After serving at the rank of clinical assistant professor, typically for a minimum of five years, a clinical assistant professor who has satisfied the following criteria may be put forward by the department for promotion to the rank of clinical associate professor:

      • Teaching Evaluation Evidence of “outstanding teaching,” typically of graduate courses, as documented in peer evaluations, annual supervisor / departmental evaluations and student SAIS evaluations as outlined in VIII, Section 3.1, A.1 of the Bylaws;
      • Professional development, as evidenced by appropriate activities in support of the expected instructional practices listed in VIII, Section 2 and Section 1, A.1 and C.1 of the Bylaws;
      • Evidence of notable contributions to the university’s instructional mission, within the faculty member’s assigned
      • Teaching 3-4 courses per semester (should not be below 75% and potentially 100%) as outlined in and VIII, Section 3.1, A.1 of the
C.1.  Teaching Evaluation

Teaching evaluation is based on the criteria outlined in VIII, Section 2 and Section 3.1, A.1 of the Bylaws:

      • Evidence of consistent “excellence in teaching,” typically of graduate courses, as documented by peer evaluations, annual supervisor / departmental evaluations and student SAIS evaluations;
      • Continuing professional development including some or all of the following activities:
      • Attendance at campus, regional, national, or international meetings directed at improving instruction;
      • Development of new courses and / or revision of existing courses;
      • Incorporation of innovative course materials or instructional techniques;
      • Scholarly or creative work in the scholarship of teaching as well as in the discipline;
      • Awards or other recognition for teaching; and
      • Teaching 3-4 courses per semester (should not be below 75% and potentially 100%).
      • Evidence of outstanding contributions to the university’s instructional mission, within the faculty member’s assigned
      • Evidence of institutional or disciplinary service, within the Non-Tenure-Track-Faculty member’s assigned role, such as
      • Advising or mentoring graduate students;
      • Supervising or coordinating a program as assigned (this will keep it general);
      • Course or program or track coordination [the area that the position is responsible. Such as the school media license]; and
      • Other forms of institutional service, such as serving on school, college, and university committees. Also serving the profession (should not be less than 15%).
C.2.  Service Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, service should not be less than 15%. Service should follow the same expectations outlined in VIII, Section 2, A.3 and Section 3.1, A.2 of the Bylaws.

C.3.  Research Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, research should be less than 10%; the output of research should be one unit per every two years on average, following the same quantitative and qualitative factors in VIII, Section 5 and Section 3.1, A.3 of the Bylaws.

C.4.  Professional Conduct

Professional conduct is reviewed in accordance with III, Section 2 of the Bylaws and current Faculty Handbook section 2.2.5 (Professional Conduct) and Hilltopics (Principles of Civility).

D.  Non-Tenure-Track Clinical Faculty Promotion to Clinical Professor Rank

A non-tenure-track faculty member is eligible for promotion to the clinical professor rank typically after a minimum of five years of regular (full-time) service at the rank.

After serving at the rank of clinical associate professor, typically for a minimum of five years, a clinical associate professor who has satisfied the following criteria may be put forward by the department for promotion to the rank of clinical professor rank:

      • Teaching Evaluation Evidence of “outstanding teaching,” typically of graduate courses, as documented in peer evaluations, annual supervisor / departmental evaluations and student SAIS evaluations as outlined in VIII, Section 3.1, A.1 of the Bylaws;
      • Professional development, as evidenced by appropriate activities in support of the expected instructional practices listed in VIII, Section 2 and Section 1, A.1 and C.1 of the Bylaws;
      • Evidence of notable contributions to the university’s instructional mission, within the faculty member’s assigned
      • Teaching 3-4 courses per semester (should not be below 75% and potentially 100%) as outlined in and VIII, Section 3.1, A.1 of the
D.1.  Teaching Evaluation

Teaching evaluation is based on the criteria outlined in VIII, Section 2 and, Section 3.1, A.1 of the Bylaws:

      • Evidence of consistent “excellence in teaching,” typically of graduate courses, as documented by peer evaluations, annual supervisor / departmental evaluations and student SAIS evaluations;
      • Continuing professional development including some or all of the following activities:
        • Attendance at campus, regional, national, or international meetings directed at improving instruction;
        • Development of new courses and / or revision of existing courses;
        • Incorporation of innovative course materials or instructional techniques;
        • Scholarly or creative work in the scholarship of teaching as well as in the discipline;
        • Awards or other recognition for teaching; and
        • Teaching 3-4 courses per semester (should not be below 75% and potentially 100%).
      • Evidence of outstanding contributions to the university’s instructional mission, within the faculty member’s assigned
      • Evidence of institutional or disciplinary service, within the Non-Tenure-Track-Faculty member’s assigned role, such as
        • Advising or mentoring graduate students;
        • Supervising or coordinating a program as assigned (this will keep it general);
        • Course or program or track coordination [the area that the position is Such as the school media license]; and
        • Other forms of institutional service, such as serving on school, college, and university committees. Also serving the profession (should not be less than 15%).
D.2.  Service Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, service should not be less than 15%. Service should follow the same expectations outlined in VIII, Section 2, A.3 and Section 3.1, A.2 of the Bylaws.

D.3.  Research Evaluation

For a non-tenure track faculty member, research should be less than 10%; the output of research should be one unit per every two years on average, following the same quantitative and qualitative factors in VIII, Section 5 and Section 3.1, A.3 of the Bylaws.

D.4.  Professional Conduct

Professional conduct is reviewed in accordance with III, Section 2 of the Bylaws and current Faculty Handbook section 2.25 (Professional Conduct) and Hilltopics (Principles of Civility).

E.  Promotion Review Process

In accordance with the Guidelines for UTK Lecturer Promotion Process, the Non-Tenure- Track teaching faculty member and department head or designee should discuss promotion as part of the annual performance review, well in advance of the suggested dates for Lecturer Promotion Process.

The promotion process begins when a dossier is submitted for consideration for promotion to next rank (See Ranks, E.1). According to the Faculty Handbook, “A departmentally designated group of faculty will review and evaluate appointments to the rank of associate” or professor. This designated group of departmental faculty must be at the same or higher rank than the candidate under review. (Faculty Handbook 4.2.1) They shall review the candidacy and record a vote in favor or against promotion by majority vote (unless some other voting mechanism is established by college or departmental bylaws). The vote of the departmentally designated faculty group is advisory to the department head.

After making an independent judgment on the promotion candidacy, the department head shall either

      • Insert a positive written recommendation in the dossier and advance it to the next level of review, OR
      • Notify the candidate in writing that the department declines to recommend

Candidates not recommended for promotion by their departments may appeal that decision to the next level. If a candidate chooses not to appeal, the application is considered to be withdrawn and the promotion process ends.

E.1.  Ranks for Clinical Non-Tenure-Track Positions

According to the current Faculty Handbook 4.2.3, the following ranks apply to clinical positions:

Clinical instructor: This rank is for those who have completed a degree appropriate to the field or who are licensed or certified to practice the profession where appropriate. Individuals holding such positions demonstrate an ability to teach students in a clinical setting.

Clinical assistant professor: This rank is for those who have completed a doctoral degree or terminal degree appropriate to the field or who are licensed or certified to practice the profession where appropriate. Individuals holding such positions demonstrate an ability to teach students in a clinical setting.

Clinical associate professor: This rank is for those who have completed a doctoral degree or a terminal degree appropriate to the field and who are licensed or certified to practice the profession where appropriate. Individuals holding such positions have demonstrated clinical and teaching abilities consistent with those for appointment at the rank of associate professor. A departmentally designated group of faculty will review and evaluate promotions to this rank in accordance with departmental and college bylaws.

Clinical professor: This rank is for those who have completed a doctoral degree or a terminal degree appropriate to the field and who are licensed or certified to practice the profession where appropriate. Individuals holding such positions have demonstrated clinical and teaching accomplishments consistent with those for appointment at the rank of professor. A departmentally designated group of faculty will review and evaluate promotions to this rank in accordance with departmental and college bylaws.

Section 4. Mentoring shall be provided to tenure-track faculty members

A.  Assignment of Mentor

As described in the Manual for Faculty Evaluation, within two months of appointment, the Director, in consultation with the new faculty member, will appoint a mentor. Both the new faculty member and the mentor should feel comfortable with this appointment (see Faculty Evaluation Manual, p. 70, Best Practices). If, for some reason, the relationship is not a comfortable one, either party may request a change. The Director is responsible for providing the new faculty member with appropriate opportunities for development as well as reasonable expectations about what will be required for a positive tenure and promotion decision.

B.  Mentor-Mentee Relationship

Mentors and mentees should follow the “Best Practices for Faculty-to-Faculty Mentoring” as described in the Manual for Faculty Evaluation.

C.  Mentor’s role in performance evaluation

At the discretion of the mentee, and with the approval of the Director, the mentor may accompany the mentee to the annual performance/retention evaluation.

Section 5. Faculty Review

Research/creative outputs should  show  evidence  of  a  well  thought-out  research  agenda. Every faculty member should have an average of at least 2 scholarly outputs per year. At least one output should be a peer-reviewed journal article. The second output could be in other peer reviewed venues such as scholarly monographs, peer reviewed conference proceedings, or peer reviewed book chapters as appropriate for their subject discipline. The quality of the output will be measured based on one or more of the quality assessment factors described in this section. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to provide justified evidence of the quality of the publications venues. Scholarly publications should include a mix of single authored and co- authored works as appropriate.

Qualitative Assessment

Qualitative assessment includes one or more of the following: Qualitative Assessment

      • Publication source fulfills one or more of the criteria listed and/or is in the list of Aspirational Publication Venues – Journals (Appendix A in SIS Document Repository, Folder: SIS Policies & Guidelines/…/Current ByLaws).
      • Publication source fulfills one or more of the criteria listed and/or is in the list of Aspirational Publication Venues – Conference Proceedings (Appendix B in SIS Document Repository, Folder: SIS Policies & Guidelines/…/Current ByLaws) Effort on co-authored publication.
      • Other factors (to be provided by faculty)

The School complies with the policy stated in the Manual for Faculty Evaluation and the Faculty Handbook, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Both documents are accessible at the Provost’s Website.

A.1. Purpose

The School of Information Sciences achieves excellence through a development and evaluation process designed to ensure that each faculty member contributes to the School in a manner that best utilizes his or her skills, experiences, and knowledge. The School recognizes that contributions will vary from individual to individual and from time to time. The goal setting process is designed to ensure that the faculty member and the Director agree upon appropriate goals that will contribute to his or her professional growth while enhancing the quality of the School’s programs. These goals provide the major criteria used in evaluating the amount and the quality of faculty effort.

B.  Calendar

Faculty Evaluation Calendar is published at the Provost’s Website at the beginning of each academic year. Schedules and due dates for tenure and promotion review, annual reviews, and retention reviews are given in the calendar. The SIS Director will manage the evaluation process to ensure compliance with university’s deadlines. The time period being reviewed is defined in the Manual Part I for retention review and Part II for annual performance review. At the first faculty meeting in the fall semester, faculty evaluation policies and review procedures will be discussed and suggestions made. Special attention will be given to how to best characterize the unique contribution that an individual faculty member makes to the School.

C.  Retention Review

There are two types of retention reviews: annual retention review and enhanced retention review. Tenure-track faculty members receive an annual retention review in addition to the annual performance and planning review in accordance with the Handbook. Each tenure-track faculty member with a probationary period of four or more years will undergo an enhanced retention review in the year following the midpoint in his or her probationary period. Refer to the Manual Part I, A for specifics on schedule, Retention Review Form, and English language competency; and Part I, B for procedures. The Director will inform the faculty member who will receive an enhanced review; and guide him or her to prepare the materials to be submitted by a due date. The Director will inform the Chair of the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee on procedures and due dates. The mentor and mentee should work closely together to prepare the material.

For an annual retention review, the tenure-leading faculty member prepares a written summary of his or her accomplishments. For an enhanced retention review, the tenure-leading faculty member prepares a preliminary draft of the tenure dossier along with supporting materials. (See Part I, B1a)

The T&P Committee chaired by the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee Chair will meet to construct a narrative (see the Manual Part I, B1b) and take a formal retention vote. For the annual retention review, the vote shall focus primarily on the tenure-track faculty member’s ability to sustain a level of teaching, research, and service that comports with the School’s expectations at the rank. For the enhanced retention review, the vote shall focus primarily on the tenure-track faculty member’s ability to meet the requirements for tenure and promotion. (see the Manual Part I B1c). The Chair will submit the Forms and narratives to the Director. The Director conducts an independent retention review and writes a report based upon the faculty member’s submitted materials, the narrative and vote of the tenured faculty, and the evaluation meeting with the faculty member. The Director shall attach the tenured faculty’s vote and narrative to the Retention Review Form (see the Manual Part I, B1d, also accessible from the Provost’s Website) and make an independent recommendation on retention or non-retention, and evaluation of performance on the Retention Review Form. The Director will provide to the faculty member a copy of the finalized Retention Review Form, including the Director’s report and recommendations.

Any member of the tenured faculty may submit a dissenting statement that will be furnished to the faculty member under review and attached to the Retention Review Form.

The faculty member under review reads and signs the Form to indicate she or he has read the entire evaluation. The faculty member has the right to respond in writing within two weeks from the date of receipt from the Director of the finalized Retention Review Form and attached materials (Part I, B1i).

The Director will forward the Retention Review Form and attached materials including the faculty member’s written response, if any, to the Dean.

D.  Annual Performance Review

According to the Handbook and the Manual, each faculty member who is not on leave is reviewed annually (see the Handbook section 3.8). The faculty member and the Director will engage in a formal annual performance-and-planning review process. The annual review covers the faculty member’s performance during the previous three academic years (see the Manual Part II).

The Director will inform the faculty members of the materials which should be prepared and submitted before the evaluation conference and the schedule and due dates. The School adopts the College’s Annual Review Report template (see below). In addition, the faculty member must provide a current curriculum vitae. The period covered by the annual review is indicated on the College’s Form, located at, http://www.cci.utk.edu/governance.

Each faculty member will meet with the Director to review the performance of the review period and evaluate goals for the upcoming review period. The result of the review is a Faculty Annual Evaluation Report (see the Manual Appendix A Forms, also accessible from the Provost’s Website) completed by the Director. The faculty member reviews and signs the Report. The faculty member may submit an appropriate response within two weeks. The Director will forward the Report, along with any written response from the faculty member, to the Dean of the College. The Dean reviews each Annual Review Report and signs it, indicating either concurrence with or dissent from the Director’s rating. Each of the faculty member and the Director has the right to submit a written response to the Dean’s rating. The Dean forwards the Annual Review Report, along with any attachment and any written response to the chief academic officer.

Follow-ups are needed in cases of needs improvement or unsatisfactory ratings (see the Manual Part II C).

E.  Tenure and Promotion Review

The University of Tennessee has criteria for tenure and promotion described in the Faculty Handbook. The following are the additional criteria for the School of Information Sciences.

E.1.  Expectations for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

The normal course for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure is to spend 5 years as an Assistant Professor, and come up for tenure during the 6th year.

Research Expectations: By the time of the tenure application, an assistant professor should have a strong publication record, and an active, sustained research program. The candidate is expected to have published an average of two scholarly units per year, the candidate should have produced at least 10 scholarly publications by the end of the fifth year, of which 5 should be peer reviewed journals. The quality of this output will be measured based on one or more of the quality assessment factors described in the SIS Bylaws. The others could be in other peer reviewed venues such as scholarly monographs, peer reviewed conference proceedings, or peer reviewed book chapters as appropriate for the subject discipline. This scholarly output would typically be a mix of single- and co-authored works, as appropriate. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide justified evidence of the quality of the publication venues. Assistant professors are expected to submit for extramural funding, though funding is not a prerequisite for promotion and tenure.

Teaching Expectations: By the time of the tenure application, an assistant professor is expected to have contributed significantly to the teaching mission of the School. The faculty member should have a teaching repertoire of masters’ and/or undergraduate courses. In addition, teaching special topics classes, or introducing new classes, or serving on graduate theses and dissertations, as well as advising graduate students contribute to the School’s teaching mission. Faculty are expected to be excellent teachers, and both peer and student evaluations will be utilized to evaluate teaching. By the tenure application, according to the UT Faculty Handbook, faculty members will have undergone two peer teaching reviews; positive outcomes on both of these reviews are expected.

Service Expectations: By the time of the tenure application, an assistant professor is expected to contribute to the service mission of the School. The assistant professor should be serving on School, College, and/or University committees. Disciplinary service is similarly important, and provides evidence of a faculty member’s national reputation. Service is not a substitute for research or teaching.

Additional Considerations: Quality of the dossier; quality of the research, teaching, and service statements. Letters from external reviewers play a key role in the assessment of the assistant professor’s dossier.

E.2.  Expectations for Promotion to Professor Rank

Research Expectations: The candidate for professor is expected to be an internationally recognized researcher with an active research agenda and a distinguished record as evidenced by awards, invited speeches, citations, etc. The candidate is expected to publish an average of two scholarly units per year. The candidate should have produced at least 10 scholarly publications since being promoted to associate professor, of which 5 should be in peer-reviewed journals. The quality of this output will be measured based on one or more of the quality assessment factors described in the SIS Bylaws. The others could be in other peer reviewed venues such as scholarly monographs, peer reviewed conference proceedings, or peer reviewed book chapters as appropriate for the subject discipline. This scholarly output would typically be a mix of single- and co-authored works, as appropriate. It is the candidate’s responsibility to provide justified evidence of the quality of the publication venues. Associate professors are expected to submit for extramural funding.

Teaching Expectations: The candidate for professor is expected to take a leading role in contributing to the teaching mission of the School as evidenced by development of new courses, excellent peer and student teaching evaluations, serving on theses and dissertation committees, student advising, and teaching at the masters, doctoral, and/or undergraduate levels.

Service Expectations: By the time of promotion to professor, the candidate is expected to take a leading role in contributing to the service mission of the School and the profession. The candidate should be serving on or chairing School, College, and University committees. Disciplinary service is similarly important, including serving on boards of professional organizations and journals, and serving as a peer reviewer for journals, conferences, grant proposals, and external tenure and promotion applications at other universities.

Additional Considerations: Quality of the dossier; quality of the research, teaching, and service statements. Letters from external reviewers play a key role in the assessment of the associate professor’s dossier.

E.3.  Procedure

The Director will notify the Chair of the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee when a faculty member is to undergo review for tenure and promotion. The candidate for tenure will prepare a dossier in accordance with the Manual (see Part IV) and submit the dossier along with relevant materials to the Director by the due date set forth in the Faculty Evaluation Calendar. The Director will select the external evaluators from a list based on nominations prepared by the candidate and the Director, and members of the T&P Committee. (See the Manual Part III).

The School’s T&P Committee consists of the tenured faculty of higher-rank in good standing. The Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Chair will chair the candidate’s T & P Committee. When there are fewer than three tenured and higher-ranked faculty members, the Director in consultation with the candidate will select a qualified faculty member from another academic who may serve on the candidate’s T & P Committee with the approval of the Dean. Alternatively, the director and Dean may request permission of exception from the chief academic officer. The Director will provide T & P Committee with access to the candidate’s Dossier, and other supporting materials as needed, prepared by the candidate at least two weeks before the T & P Committee meets. The Chair of the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs Committee will preside at the T & P meeting. When the Faculty and Doctoral Student Affairs’ Chair is the mentor of the candidate being considered for tenure, a senior member of the T & P Committee will preside for that candidate. The T & P Committee shall deliberate and discuss the candidate’s case for tenure and/or promotion. The Committee will use a ballot (see the Handbook 3.11.5 for ballot procedures). The minimum number of votes necessary to constitute a positive recommendation shall be a simple majority (51%) of the voting members present at the meeting, who vote yes (abstentions do not count). A written summary of the tenured faculty’s deliberation should stay authentic to deliberations in representing both the majority and minority opinions as applicable along with the result of the vote as a recommendation to the Director is due within one week after the meeting. Comments in the meeting and on the ballots shall remain confidential without being attributed to the individuals in the committee report. When a candidate has not received a unanimous committee vote, the report must include a discussion of the reasons for the divergent opinions or dissenting statements. The T & P report is made available to the candidate by the Director so that the candidate can prepare a dissenting statement if he or she wishes within the timeframe defined by the Manual. The T & P recommendation, the vote, and any dissenting statements become part of the Dossier.

The Director will review appropriate materials, including the T & P reports mentioned above, and prepare a letter that becomes part of the candidate’s Dossier. The Director’s letter must be available to the candidate and the T & P Committee. Faculty members may individually or collectively submit dissenting statements to the department head’s recommendation, which become part of the Dossier. The candidate has the right to respond in writing according to the schedule outlined in the Manual. The candidate’s response becomes part of the Dossier and must be made available to the T & P Committee. (See the Manual Part III C2).

The Director forwards the Dossier along with relevant materials to the Dean by the due date.

F.  Cumulative Performance Review

A cumulative performance review for tenured faculty is triggered in the following circumstances:

      • A faculty member whose annual evaluation results in a rating of unsatisfactory in any two of five consecutive years;
      • A faculty member whose annual evaluation results in any combination of unsatisfactory or needs improvement ratings in any three of five consecutive

See the Manual Part V for materials and process.

G.  Peer Teaching Assessment Policy

Peer teaching assessment is based on the policies and procedures put forth in the current UTK Manual for Faculty Evaluation (http://provost.utk.edu/docs/evaluation/faculty-evaluation- manual.pdf) (See Section, “Best Practices for Assessment and Evaluation of Faculty Teaching”) in the UTK Manual for Faculty Evaluation.

Peer assessment provides faculty members with feedback from their peers that will assist them in identifying their strengths and areas for improvements in their teaching. Peer assessment of teaching can foster constructive dialog about teaching that can benefit not only the faculty member under review, but the members of a peer assessment team.

A tenure-track faculty member whose appointment will not be renewed will not be subject to a peer teaching assessment.

G.1.  Peer Teaching Assessment General Procedures
      • Peer Teaching Assessment helps faculty members identify strengths and areas that need improvements in teaching. As stated in the current UTK Manual Best Practices statement, “an assessment should not include a performance ” It provides feedback on teaching to the faculty member and to the Director, and is only one factor that the Director considers when making a faculty performance rating.
      • Peer Teaching Assessment is required of SIS faculty on the following schedule (beginning when this Policy revision is approved): 1) probationary faculty (tenure-track faculty) are assessed twice in their probationary period; 2) tenured faculty are assessed in the year before they apply for promotion or, in those cases in which a tenured faculty member is to undergo a cumulative performance review, the faculty member is to be assessed as soon as possible after the review is requested by the
      • The SIS Director is responsible for setting a calendar for Peer Teaching Assessment; establishing the Assessment Committees (in conjunction with the faculty to be assessed); and receives a copy of the Committee’s report. As stated in the current UTK Manual, the Director considers the Peer Teaching Assessments as one input factor in deciding on a performance rating for teaching. The other two factors are a yearly self-assessment of teaching and required student evaluations for each course
      • Peer Assessment Committees should be appointed in a timely manner so the members will have at least a month to review course materials and arrange for class visits with an additional month to complete their report. As outlined in the current UTK Manual Best Practices statement, each Committee consists of three members: one selected by the faculty member; one selected by the Director; and one agreed on by both the faculty member and the Director. Two of these members are from the SIS faculty and one is from outside the School. A probationary faculty member’s mentor is not eligible to be on the mentee’s committee.
      • The Committees will use the UTK current Manual Part B: Peer Assessment Criteria as a guide for the Assessment Process. The Peer Assessment Committee will follow the procedure recommended by the University of Tennessee Knoxville Peer Evaluation of Teaching Committee members may talk with the faculty member about the process and ask any questions they may have. At the end of the assessment process, the Committee submits a report to the faculty member, the mentor, and the Director. This is not to include a rating or comparison with other faculty members should follow the UTK Manual, Best Practices statement.

G.2.  Peer Teaching Assessment Criteria

Assessment is based on the UTK Manual, Best Practices statement. The assessment is done on four areas: 1. Content, 2. Grading/Evaluation/Assessment System, 3. Teaching Methods, and 4. Innovation in Teaching.

Article IX. Amendments

The faculty shall have the power to make, amend, and repeal the Bylaws by a vote of two- thirds majority of those members present at any regular or special meeting, provided that a quorum is present and the amendment has been submitted in writing to faculty members one week prior to the meeting.

Addenda of procedures and policies are included for information but are not part of the official Bylaws. All addenda should be dated.

Article X. Revision Notes

This version is based on the Bylaws and other Faculty Policies assembled 12-2008. Voted on by SIS faculty and adopted on April 3, 2013.

This revised version is voted on March 21, 2018; April 4, 2018; April 18, 2018; April 30, 2018; May 2018; December 2019.