• FACULTY ADMINISTRATION HOME
• CONTACT US
• Event Calendar
  

• Faculty Affairs Policy & Processes
  • 2008 Dean's Club Eligibility Form
  • Faculty Recruitment
  • Faculty Selection and Offer
  • Faculty Appointment
  • Faculty Resignations
  • Retirement and Emeritus Status
  • Faculty Reviews
  • Sabbatical and LOA
  • Dean's Club
  • TFR/CFR
• Auxiliary Faculty
  • Auxiliary Faculty Policy
  • Reappt
  • Clinical Faculty
  • Research Faculty
  • Lecturer Faculty
  • Visiting Instructors
  • Visiting Faculty
  • Adjunct Faculty
  • Academic Staff Appointments and Review
• Retention, Promotion & Tenure
  • Overview
  • Preamble
  • Criteria
  • RPT Process
  • Review Sequence
  • Voting Procedures
  • Award of Tenure
• Forms and Documents
  • Tenure Track Probationary Worksheet
  • SHAC Sample Survey for obtaining informal assessment of teaching
  • 2009 SOM RPT Administrative Training
  • 2009 SOM RPT Handbook
  • Employment Agreement
  • Reviewersform
  • assessingteaching
  • Auxiliary Faculty Offer Template
  • Non-Compete Language
• Faculty Development
  • Mission Statement
  • Mentoring
  • New Faculty Orientation
  • RPT Prep
  • Grant Resources
  • What is Scholarly?
  • Calendar of Events
  • Useful Links
• Useful Links
  • AAMC
  • Medical Staff Office
  • MBM Gateway
  • U Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence
  • Faculty Handbook
  • SOM Bylaws
  • U of U Policy and Procedures
  • UUMG
• Women in Medicine

RPT Process

• The RPT File
• Scheduling Department Faculty Meeting
• Department Chair's Recommendation
• Action by the Dean and CAC
• Action by the VP and UPTAC
• Appeal of Recommendation
• Faculty Member Responsibility
• Department Responsibility
• S(H)AC Responsibility
• Department Chair/DAC Chair Responsibility

RPT Forms and Resources

• 2009_RPT_Handbook
• 2009 RPT Training
• tenuresummaryform
• Non-Tenure_Review
• RPT Review Schedule
• SACSummary
• Sample Review Letter from Chair to Candidate
• Sample Chair's Letter informing Candidate of Right to Respond
• Department Chair Letter to Department SAC for Mid-Probationary Review
• Invitation to Provide Written Comments / Recommendations
• Student/Housestaff Advisory Committee [SHAC] Instructions
• Letters of Evaluation
• Suggested Timeline

Responsibility of the Department

1. Distribute criteria to be used in retention, promotion, and tenure reviews. These criteria should address the qualifications of candidates with respect to the areas of 1) teaching, 2) research/scholarly activity, 3) clinical service, and 4) administration (e.g., university, professional, and public service). The criteria shall emphasize the university's commitment to superior intellectual attainment and responsible faculty conduct (PPM 9-5.2.b).
2. Each department must develop a method of evaluating candidates scheduled for third-year retention, fifth-year retention, and promotion/tenure review. If your department will use the SOM criteria, please send a statement stating this to the Faculty Administration Office by July 16, 2007. Departments may wish to invest in a common 360-degree instrument for the third-year retention review. If that is the case, please send a copy of your department procedures and criteria to the Faculty Administration Office by July 16, 2007.
3. Announce which candidates are required by RPT guidelines to be reviewed. Notify all department faculty to be considered for faculty review to schedule a meeting with their division chief, department chair, or DAC chair as soon as possible to review their status. Promotion to Associate Professor and the award of tenure are coupled actions. Promotion to Associate Professor will not be considered without the award of tenure.
4. Each candidate must submit a current curriculum vitae and bibliography, in the SOM format, and is strongly urged to submit a self-assessment statement. The candidate should clearly delineate collaborative research efforts in their self-assessment statement. Files received without an organized, informative CV will be returned to the department for correction.
5. Please note that for RPT purposes, candidates must list their full academic rank on their CV (i.e., Assistant Professor (Clinical) or Research Assistant Professor, etc.).
6. Tenure-track faculty scheduled for a required third-year retention review must declare under which path (Scientist-Scholar or Clinician-Scholar) of the tenure track they wish to be evaluated for subsequent reviews (not the third-year retention review). That declaration is made as part of the third-year retention review. Review by the criteria for evaluation of the selected tenure-track path will occur at subsequent reviews (e.g., fifth- or sixth-year retention review).
7. Candidates are required to sign a notice to waive or retain their right to see letters of evaluation solicited for the RPT process. Discuss the principles behind the use of the waiver statement with the candidate. The letter to invited evaluators must contain a statement regarding the confidentiality of their response. The invited evaluators will be alerted that their recommendation letter will be considered an ‘open file', if the candidate elected to retain the right to see the letters of recommendation. This notice must be signed by the candidate and a witness, and placed in the RPT file. The candidate may provide names of suggested referees at the time of acting on the waiver form; however, the candidate may not see or learn about the final list of referees who may be or are contacted.
8. Elect a chair of the DAC, whose responsibility it is to oversee the review process and to prepare the file for each candidate. The department chair cannot be chair of this committee.
9. The chairperson of the department RPT advisory committee shall be elected annually from the tenured members of the department. In this election all regular faculty members of the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor shall be entitled to vote. The department may choose to appoint a permanent DAC chair to prepare the RPT files.
10. The DAC chair is responsible for preparing the files by gathering data pertinent to the candidate's qualifications, as described below. The DAC chair will prepare a specific recommendation to the DAC chair/department chair/departmental faculty (at the official RPT departmental faculty meeting) regarding the merits of each proposed action. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee may be included in the file; however, the recommendation does not replace the official RPT departmental faculty meeting minutes. The ad hoc committee does not have an official vote.
11. Letters of evaluation from experts in the candidate's professional or scientific field must be solicited, from within the department and/or University, and from without the University. For tenure-track candidates, letters should be from tenured faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor (equal to or greater than the proposed rank for the candidate). For clinical-track faculty, letters should be from faculty at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor (equal to or greater than the proposed rank for the candidate). Additional letters may be necessary to establish the regional/national stature of the candidate (required for the rank of Associate Professor) or national/international stature of the candidate (required for the rank of Professor).
12. Departments must provide the candidate with the SOM policy regarding solicitation of external letters of evaluation. The candidate may provide a list of names and addresses of individuals who can evaluate their professional or scientific activities and accomplishments. Letters must be solicited from a combination of independent lists provided by the candidate and DAC chair. Letters should not come from previous mentors or directors, regardless of the candidate's track. The DAC chair may choose some names from the list provided by the candidate but will not contact all names recommended by the candidate. The DAC chair should omit any names of previous mentors or directors. THE CANDIDATE MUST NOT CONTACT THE EXTERNAL REFEREES OR BE INFORMED OF THEIR IDENTITY.
13. A recommendation and evaluation of the candidate also must be sought from the SHAC. The SHAC shall be given at least three weeks to prepare its recommendations prior to the scheduled official RPT departmental voting meeting. If the SHAC does not produce formal recommendation, their rights to comment on the candidate shall be deemed waived.
14. Add all other required material to the candidate's file. Refer to the appropriate track and action "Checklist for RPT Actions”.
15. Completed files (including electronic PDF files of all included documents) are to be delivered to the Faculty Administration Office, 1C047, before 4 PM. October 29, 2007