Statements of Evaluation of the Candidate by Review Committees and Administrators
Statements of Evaluation of the Candidate by Review Committees and Administrators
This section is paginated starting with E-1. Sample Department Committee Review Letter to the Dean
Review Committee and Administrator letters: These letters are accessible to the candidate upon completion of the review process each year.
The order of materials in this section must appear exactly as listed on the divider. Any letter of assessment from any administrator who shares continuing budgetary authority will be placed immediately before the department review committee's letter and will be available before review at all review levels. For tenure cases, previous years' tenure evaluations should be presented in chronological order beginning with the earliest probationary reviews (two-year) through the most recent. Committee and Administrator letters should be on letterhead, in memo form, and addressed to the Dean. All members of the Committee must be listed including their professorial rank. The letter must include the signature of the committee chair and the date. If a faculty member is being considered for both promotion and tenure, both decisions should be addressed in a single letter. (See sample letter format in Example Dossier.) Divide the letter into clearly marked sections focusing on teaching, research, service and summary. Clearly state the evaluation of each of the three criteria being reviewed.
Committee votes: All votes, including unanimous votes, must be noted explicitly using a numeric format (e.g., 7 yes, 0 no), any absentia explained, and any consultation must be acknowledged (including the date), and explained. Members should abstain only when there is a legitimate conflict of interest, such as a relative being considered for promotion or tenure. If there is an abstention, the reason should be noted in the evaluative statement. A member who is abstaining should not be present for the discussion or the vote.
Consultation: When an administrator differs with the committee at the same level of review, or a committee differs with the administrator at the previous review level, consultation must occur about reasons for divergence. Consultation should be initiated by the committee or administrator differing with or seeking clarification concerning the previous recommendation. It is helpful to prepare a memo to the prior review level listing questions or concerns on which you desire further understanding. The fact that the consultation occurred must be noted in the letter (EX: "Consultation occurred on (date) to discuss reasons for the different recommendations between (review level) and (review level)."
Uneven Votes: A majority and a minority opinion must be included in the letter if the vote is not unanimous. The length of the majority and minority opinions should be roughly proportional to the size of each group.
Tie Votes: The opinions must be included in the letter and both opinions should be similarly equal proportionally. A tie vote is considered to be a negative recommendation, and the “Not Recommended” block is to be checked on the Promotion and Tenure Form in such circumstances.
