Resources for Department Chairs and Faculty A&P Leads


RESOURCES FOR CHAIRS AND LEADS

Leading Professoriate Review Actions

Leading Professoriate Review Actions

The Office of Academic Affairs oversees and facilitates proactive administration of all aspects of policies and processes in partnership with departments related to faculty recruitments and appointments, reappointments and promotions and other faculty employment actions.  We support departments, the School of Medicine, and the University in safeguarding the integrity, fairness, and transparency of policies and processes affecting the faculty.

Things to do:

  • Review the Appointments and Promotions (A&P) Roles. Each role noted performs a critical function in leading professoriate review actions on behalf of the department. For more information to the Appointments and Promotions (A&P) Roles, Click here
  • Review the Long Form Sections. The long form is an assemblage of confidential documents for the appointment, reappointment, or promotion of a Professoriate faculty member. For more information to the Long Form Sections, Cick here
  • Review the Criteria in brief for each line. For more information to the criteria for each line, Click here

A&P Guidance and Resources for Department Chairs and Faculty A&P Leads

This section provides document references and guidance on the A&P process, the departmental voting process, guidelines for conflicts of interest, and confidentiality.  

Long Form Guidance and Resources for Long Form Faculty Leads

This section provides document references and guidance on the long form process including guidelines for the professoriate CV (including an example), candidate statement guidelines, best practices for writing the long form narrative, and a guidelines on why referee and trainee letters and grids are important.

Examples of Long Form materials written by Faculty Leadership

The Faculty Affairs Administrator and the Long Form Faculty Lead work together on the Long Form. The sections below are written by faculty leadership as follows:

  • Chair’s Transmittal Memo (by Chair)
  • Narrative Report on the Candidate (Faculty Long Form Lead)
  • Identify and Select referee, trainee, peers (Department Chair, Division Chief or Faculty Lead)
  • Draft Counseling Memo (by Chair or Division Chief)

 

This section provides examples of transmittal memos, narrative reports, and counseling memos written by faculty. The department chair, division chief, or faculty lead must assemble a list of referees, trainees and peer set (as applicable).

Transmittal Memo (Department Chair)

 

Narrative Report (Faculty Lead/Evaluation Unit/Committee)

 

Identify and Select referee, trainee, peers (Department Chair, Division Chief or Faculty Lead)

 

Counseling Memo (Department Chair or Division Chief)

Considerations

Confidentiality
Materials distributed to the evaluation committee/ evaluation unit, eligible voting departmental faculty or the A&P Committee, and the deliberations of those groups (including outcomes), are strictly confidential and are not to be discussed outside of relevant meetings. Materials (including electronic materials) distributed to the voting bodies are to be returned or destroyed following consideration by the voting body. SoM Handbook

Voting
All members present at a meeting are required to provide a vote. The tabulation of the vote is recorded. Abstentions are inappropriate, and absentee votes may be allowed by department policy. All A&P actions must be handled in accordance with department, school and university policies and procedures.

Personal Familiarity with the Candidate
It is understood that members will occasionally have personal, direct familiarity with the candidate's performance. In the interest of equity, because such personal perspectives will not be available for all candidates, members should not introduce personal knowledge (whether positive or negative) beyond the information presented in the file itself or in supplemental materials provided.

Potential for Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should take care to be attentive to any conflict of interest or possible perception of conflict of interest with regard to the candidate. Reasons for recusal include a spousal or other family relationship with the candidate, collaboration (other than minor) on research, a mentoring relationship with the candidate, membership in downstream review committees that may see the file, and having written a letter for the file. If in doubt concerning a recusal, committee members should consult the committee chair, department chair, Vice Dean, or Office of Academic Affairs.