• 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 Faculty Member

1. The candidate should be familiar with the faculty review process, and its guidelines.

2. The candidate should compose an organized, informative CV that is kept up-to-date several times a year. The responsibility of the candidate is to provide a current CV to the DAC chair at the time of faculty review. Format for the CV for faculty review should follow the SOM Format.

3. The candidate is strongly encouraged to provide a self-assessment statement for the formal RPT file, detailing and interpreting the importance of his/her activities, accomplishments, and responsibilities within the department, SOM, and/or University, as well as outside the University (regional/national/international entities).
   
   This statement should include descriptions of the meaning and impact of their teaching responsibilities, research/scholarly activities, clinical service (if applicable), and administrative activities. The narrative should compliment, rather than repeat, the factual information presented in the candidate's CV. The candidate should highlight significant achievements in each of the four categories of evaluation, and identify what the candidate considers to be their most important work and why it is important to the field.
   
   Candidates engaged in collaborative research efforts should delineate their contributions in their self-assessment statement, including description of their contribution to multi-authored papers. The self-assessment statement also is the place to explain the consequences of unexpected challenges (e.g., absence associated with family medical leave) and setbacks, as well as accelerated accomplishments. Effort should be made to restrict the self-assessment statement to 2 or 3 pages, with one-inch margins to improve readability. 

4. Tenure-track faculty undergoing third-year retention review must declare the path (Scientist-Scholar or Clinician-Scholar) for which criteria will be used for subsequent reviews (e.g., fifth- or sixth-year retention review).

5. Provide a list of potential external reviewers from whom the DAC chair may solicit letters of evaluation. For tenure-track faculty, 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).
   
   Additional letters may be necessary to establish the local/regional/growing national stature of the candidate (required for the rank of Associate Professor) or established national/international stature of the candidate (required for the rank of Professor). Letters should not come from previous mentors or directors, regardless of the candidate's track.
   
   Recommendations should be limited to individuals with expertise in the candidate's field(s) but they should not have been the candidate's mentor or director because their familiarity potentially could compromise an impartial assessment. This limitation does not restrict peers from being invited to submit a letter of recommendation.
   
   Examples of peers are individuals who served on a regional, national, or international review panel, policy panel, or academic-society committee with the candidate, or contributed to a multi-authored peer-reviewed paper, and therefore gained first-hand insight about the candidate's expertise and contributions. External letters from former University of Utah faculty that have relocated do not support the essence of impartial review required for the award of tenure and will not be considered as external letters.
   
   Refer to Letters of Evaluation.
   
   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).

6. The candidate must sign a form, waiving or retaining the right to see letters of evaluation. See "Faculty Option Regarding Outside Letters”. This form must be signed by a witness and placed in the RPT file PRIOR to soliciting any letters of evaluation. 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.
   

7. The candidate is entitled to review their complete RPT review file upon request at any time during the review process, except for confidential letters of evaluation solicited from outside the department, if the candidate has waived this right. If a candidate wishes to comment on, or take exception to, any item in his/her complete RPT review file, the candidate's written comment or exception must be added to the file before the official RPT departmental faculty meeting.

8. Following the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, and formal recommendation by the department chair, the candidate has the right, but not the obligation, to respond to all recommendations that are made.
   
   The department will send a copy of the minutes from the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, a copy of the Master Summary Document, and a copy of the formal recommendation by the department chair to the candidate.
   
   The candidate will then have seven (7) business days in which to provide written response to any of those documents. That response will be placed in the complete RPT review file. See Policy and Procedures 9-5.1 D.3.
   
   "The candidate shall have the opportunity at this time, but not the obligation, to add a written statement to her/his formal review file in response to the summary report of the Departmental Faculty Advisory Committee and/or the evaluation of the department chairperson. Written notice of this option shall be included with the copy of the chairperson's evaluation, which is sent to the candidate. If the candidate chooses to add such a statement to the file, that statement must be submitted to the department chairperson within seven days, except in extenuating circumstances, of the date upon which the chairperson's evaluation is delivered to the candidate. If the candidate submits a written statement to the department chairperson within this time limit, the candidate's statement shall be added to the review file without comment by the chairperson."