• 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

The RPT File

Proper preparation and completeness of each candidate's file are essential for the uninterrupted progress of a RPT review through all the stages of the review process.

Cumulative File

The RPT File is envisioned as a notebook in the department office, which is growing throughout a faculty member's probationary period at the university. However, a physical notebook is not the only method allowable -- for example an electronic file or other format may be used alone or as a supplement. The file shall be cumulative and kept current as described in the following sections. See PPM 9-5.1

The candidate’s file is expected to provide current and complete curriculum vitae in the School of Medicine format. CV must be organized in a clear and coherent manner, with appropriate dates of various items and logical groupings or categories related to the School of Medicine’s RPT criteria.

The CV should be updated annually, but not during the course of a given year’s review. During a review, new accomplishments may be reported and documented as a part of any of the reports or responses in the regular process.

Evidence of Activity and Accomplishment

The candidate is expected to provide evidence of professional activity and accomplishment in their curriculum vitae (CV), including teaching activity, research and other scholarly (creative) activity, clinical service, and administration. An updated CV should be placed in the department file.

Explanation and interpretation of professional activity and accomplishment should be provided in a self-assessment statement, which also should be updated annually for the department file.

Past Reviews and Recommendations

The department chair shall include the documents from all previous reports submitted by all voting levels for informal reviews The past reviews and recommendations in a file for promotion to Professor shall include the candidate's vita at the time of the previous promotion (or at appointment if hired as Associate Professor), all reports and recommendations from tenured faculty reviews, and teaching evaluation summaries since the previous promotion (or appointment). If that promotion or appointment was more than five years earlier, teaching evaluation summaries should be included for at least the most recent five years.

Evidence of Faculty Responsibility (if relevant)

Letters of administrative reprimand and the latest finding, decision, or recommendation from university committees or officials arising from relevant concerns about the candidate, should be included in the candidate's file.

Master Summary Document (MSD)

• Download Sample

Prior to the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, the DAC chair will be responsible for preparing a Master Summary Document (MSD) for each faculty candidate undergoing review. The MSD will summarize the candidate's background, and their activities and accomplishments in the four areas of evaluation:

1. teaching, 
2. research/scholarly activity,
   
3. clinical service (if applicable), and
   
4. administration, as well as the student/housestaff advisory committee (SHAC) evaluation. The MSD also will include summaries of the reviews provided by internal and external referees.

Other written statements

Any other written statements — from the candidate, faculty and/or staff members in the department, the department chairperson, the college dean, or interested individuals--which are intended to provide information or data of consequence for the formal review of the candidate, must be placed in the file by the department chairperson at least 30 days prior to the department faculty RPT advisory committee meeting to consider the case.

Internal Evaluations

The purpose of internal evaluations (letters from intramural referees) is to provide assessment of activity, accomplishment, and collegiality from those who work with the candidate. Potential referees do not include the department chair and division chief (if applicable) because they automatically submit internal letters of evaluation. Please refer to Letters of Evaluation for details.

External Evaluations

The purpose of external evaluations (letters from extramural referees) is to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the candidate's work and its impact on the academic and/or professional community at large. Before external evaluations are requested, the candidate must be provided with a departmentally prepared form allowing him/her to waive or retain his/her rights to read submitted external 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.

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. Candidates are urged to work on this important task with their DAC chair.

External evaluations are critical to the review process because they provide assessment of a candidate's contribution to and/or expertise in a field. Therefore, selection of external referees should be limited to individuals with expertise in the candidate's field but the external referees 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 evaluation.

Examples of peers are individuals who served on a national or academic society committee or review panel with the candidate, or contributed independently to a multi-authored, peer-reviewed paper, and therefore gained first-hand insight about the candidate's contributions and expertise. The ideal, impartial external referees are individuals with expertise in the candidate's field but have not worked with the candidate. However, recognition is made that finding such individuals may be difficult and require more effort.

Please refer to Letters of Evaluation for details.

Candidate's Rights

Candidates are entitled to view their 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 the right to see them. If a candidate wishes to comment on, or take exception with, any item in her/his formal review file, the candidate's written comment or exception must be added to the file before the official RPT departmental faculty meeting.

Review of Candidate's File

The candidate's file shall be made available, in advance of the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, to those eligible to attend that meeting. Departments will also have a copy of the entire candidate file at the meeting. The timing of these activities should be specified in department policy.

Notice to involved individuals:

1. Notice to Candidate: Each candidate for retention, promotion, or tenure shall be given at least 30 days advance notice of the departmental RPT Advisory committee meeting and shall be provided with an opportunity to submit any information the candidate desires the committee to consider.

2. Notice to departmental faculty and staff: At least three (3) weeks prior to the convening of the departmental RPT committee meeting, the department chairperson shall invite any interested faculty and staff members in the department to submit written recommendations for the file of each candidate to be considered, stating as specifically as possible the reasons for each recommendation. . Departments will not include anonymous recommendations in any faculty file. See Sample Document Memo invitation to provide written comments/recommendations.

3. Notice to Student Advisory Committee: Prior to convening of the departmental RPT committee, the department chairperson shall notify the college’s representative to the Student Senate and the department S(H)AC committee(s) of the upcoming actions and request that the S(H)AC submit written recommendations with respect to each candidate to be considered.
   
   The S(H)AC shall be given at least three (3) weeks to prepare its recommendations, but upon failure to report after such notification and attempts by the department chairperson to obtain the reports, the S(H)AC’s recommendations shall be deemed conclusively waived and their absence shall not thereafter be cause for complaint by faculty members appealing an adverse decision.

Confidentiality of File and All Documents

The RPT file is considered a personnel file and should be maintained confidentially amongst department faculty and the candidate. Discussion of any information in the RPT file with the faculty candidate undergoing review, or with anyone outside of the department, is in violation of university policy and the faculty code of conduct.

Official RPT Departmental Faculty Meeting

Once the candidate's file has been sent to the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, the file is considered closed. Letters of support received after this meeting may not be added.

At the meeting at which the vote by departmental faculty occurs ( official RPT departmental faculty meeting ), the faculty should undertake a thorough discussion of the candidate, including the candidate's activity and accomplishments (e.g., based on the candidate's CV and self-assessment statement), recommendation of the SHAC, and recommendations of the internal and external referees. Minutes of the discussion and vote for each candidate should be recorded, either by the DAC chair or a designated recorder.

After the official RPT departmental faculty meeting, additional information and documentation provided by the candidate may be added to the file, without the file going back to the official RPT departmental faculty meeting. Examples would be letter of acceptance of a submitted manuscript, notice of award of a pending grant application, or membership on an extramural grant review panel.

Those documents may be accompanied by an updated CV, clearly marked on the front page with the revision date. The candidate must formally prepare a written request for additional documentation to be added to her/his file. Additional information submitted by others for the file can be included only with written notification and approval by the faculty candidate.

Department Chair's Recommendation

The statement from the department chair is critical. Her/his letter should not repeat the material contained in the MSD. The chair should identify the reasons for recommending the action(s), as well as address any concerns that may have been raised by the DAC, SHAC, internal or external referees, and/or eligible departmental faculty. The chair's letter should critically assess the candidate's activities and accomplishments to justify her/his recommendation. The department chair's letter also should explicitly address faculty responsibility.

Formal File Submitted to the Faculty Administration Office

The department should make one hard copy of the completed RPT file, for their records, and send the original and one copy of the completed RPT file to the Faculty Administration Office no later than October 27, 2008.

For files that require SOM A&RPT review (promotion, tenure, and/or majority negative retention reviews), the department will scan all of the documents in the completed RPT file into ‘PDF' format and send them electronically to Jennifer.Allie@hsc.utah.edu. Faculty Administration will place the electronic RPT file documents on a secure web site for review by the SOM RPT Committee.