Warrington College of Business logo on a banner with a gator emerging from water.

Regulations and policies

Warrington policies

Download PDF policy documents:

All Warrington centers report to the academic unit head of the department/school with which they are affiliated. The exceptions are Public Utility Research Center (PURC) and Management Communication Center (MCC), which report directly to the Senior Associate Dean.

  • Appointment of Center Directors: The process begins with a nomination/recommendation to the College Dean from the chair/director of the unit with which the center is affiliated. Center Directors are appointed by the Dean or his designee for a three-year term. Renewal of appointment is subject to review and recommendation by the chair/director and the Dean.
  • Each Center Director will submit an annual report during the Spring of each year.
  • FAR & Effort – Center Director activity/service should be included on the employee’s Faculty Assignment Report (FAR) and Effort Report. Official UF duties should be reported each semester on the Faculty Assignment Report (duties being “assigned” before each term begins) and Effort Report (what is reported as “actual” effort after each term has ended) – Only what is reported via these processes should be included in a faculty member’s annual evaluation.
  • Faculty Annual Reports should include center activity (IV. A. Leadership Positions Held). Copies of the Center Annual Report should be included with the submission of the Faculty Annual Report.
  • A periodic administrative review will be completed during the spring of the last year of appointment. Continuation as a Center Director will be based on the needs of the college, recommendation of the chair/director and the outcomes of the administrative review.

Faculty and staff should consult with ITSP technical staff prior to purchasing new equipment and unless equivalent functions are not available a standardized platform (Dell or Apple) should be utilized. If one’s needs cannot be met by Dell or Apple and an alternate brand is truly the best alternative, ITSP staff will assist in obtaining the best price and do its best to maintain the system.

The College is committed to providing the best possible support to faculty and staff. A standardized platform maximizes the quality of support received from ITSP. Additional costs and/or staff effort to maintain non-standard platform systems over their lifespan is inappropriate when a standardized Dell or Apple enterprise system could have been used. Faculty and staff often purchase “home computers” from consumer-oriented websites or catalogs instead of enterprise systems. All Windows vendors, including Dell, have both personal and enterprise lines of systems. The personal systems typically have lower grade parts, shorter warranties, and inconsistent configurations over time. These are harder for the ITSP team to service (even Dell) due to lack of enterprise grade support websites, parts programs, etc. The College also receives substantially better pricing on Dell enterprise systems than on any alternative (including Dell personal systems).

Evaluation of student performance in a particular class is the sole responsibility of the assigned instructor. Resolution of a grade dispute may or may not result in a grade change. Any grade change must be initiated and authorized by the instructor of record.

  1. A student who thinks there has been an error that resulted in an incorrect final course grade should first make a determined effort to fully discuss the grade concerns with the course instructor.
  2. If the issue remains unresolved after discussion with the instructor, the student must first meet with an advisor in his or her degree program to further address and clarify the issue and the details of a possible formal grade appeal.
  3. Formal grade appeal procedures may be initiated only after the conclusion of a course and following formal receipt of the final course grade. Students potentially graduating the semester during which the course is taken may initiate action following informal receipt of the final grade.
  4. If, after discussion with the instructor and advisor, the issue remains unresolved, the student may present his or her concerns to the instructor’s academic unit head (i.e., department chair, Director of the Fisher School, or Director of the Management Communication Center) in writing, including appropriate documentation, by the end of the second week of class in the semester (or module) following the course in question.
  5. The academic unit head or designee will review the matter and may request a meeting with the student and the instructor. The academic unit head or designee will provide a written report to the student and the instructor within ten working days following receipt of the student’s written appeal. The academic unit head or designee’s report will be limited to a judgment as to whether fairness and due process was observed with respect to the subject of the dispute.
  6. If the student remains unsatisfied with the report and its outcome, he or she may request review by a two-member faculty committee from the academic unit, consisting of one member appointed by the academic unit head and one member selected by the student. If the faculty member selected by the student declines to participate in the process, the student will need to make another choice. The review committee will review the situation with the student and with the instructor. A meeting of the committee with the student and instructor may be arranged if such a meeting is likely to be beneficial.
  7. The review committee will render no decision as to the grade for the course or any component of that grade. The review committee’s sole function is to render judgment as to whether the student has had a fair hearing and whether due process was observed with respect to the subject of the dispute.
  8. Within ten working days of the establishment of the review committee, the committee shall make a written report available to both the student and the instructor, with a copy to the academic unit head.
  9. The instructor retains the final responsibility for grade assignment. Following the conclusion of the grade appeal process, the student may seek advice and assistance from the program office of the student’s major and/or from the University Office of the Ombuds.

University of Florida
Warrington College of Business
Revised 02/2024

All Warrington Graduate Program Directors report to the AUH of the department/school with which the relevant degree program is affiliated. Graduate degree programs that are exempt are MBA (which reports directory to the Sr. Associate Dean) and MIB, MSM and MS-MRK, which report directly to the Associate Dean for Master’s Programs.

A periodic administrative review will be completed during the spring of the last year of appointment. Continuation as a Graduate Program Director will be based on the needs of the college, recommendation of the chair/director and the outcomes of the Administrative review.

Appointment of Graduate Program Directors. Appointment of a full-time faculty member as Graduate Program Director will follow the following process. The process begins with a nomination/recommendation to the College Dean from the chair/director of the unit with which the degree program is affiliated. With approval of the Dean, Graduate Program directors are appointed for a five-year term. Renewal of appointment is subject to review and recommendation by the chair/director and the Dean.

FAR & Effort – Graduate Program Director activity/service should be included on the employee’s Faculty Assignment Report (FAR) and Effort Report. Official UF duties should be reported each semester on the Faculty Assignment Report (duties being “assigned” before each term begins) and Effort Report (what is reported as “actual” effort after each term has ended) – Only what is reported via these processes should be included in a faculty member’s annual evaluation.

Faculty Annual Reports should include graduate program activity (IV. A. Leadership Positions Held).

Merit pay is to be awarded to faculty members who contribute significantly in all functions expected of them, with particular emphasis on their research productivity over the past several years. The “functions expected of faculty members” are teaching, research and service, as consistent with the faculty member’s designation.

“Research productivity” is measured on an academic scale, consistent with that in the faculty member’s discipline.

Consideration should also be given to the extent to which the faculty member’s contributions are reflected in his or her current salary (relative to academic market value), years in service, and years in rank.

Revised by faculty committee: May 12, 1998
Affirmed by faculty committee: May 2004

UF policies

At this resource you will find a Faculty Recruitment Toolkit, Search Committee Online Tutorial and Tutorial Verification List (via myUFL), information for Faculty Recruits, a Search Process Overview and the waiver form.

Faculty Recruitment and Retention