The Unit Materials section provides a comprehensive set of templates, reports, and guidelines necessary to document and support the promotion and tenure review process. These materials ensure transparency, consistency, and adherence to university policies at every stage of the evaluation. Below, you will find detailed descriptions of required documents, including their purpose, preparation guidelines, and the workflow for sharing and revising them as needed. Each item plays a critical role in capturing contributions, evaluations, and recommendations while maintaining fairness and clarity for all participants.
This grid is intended to provide visibility into the full breadth and status of external review efforts. It documents those who participated as external reviewers as well as all those who were nominated, accepted but never submitted a letter, or declined to participate. Download the External Reviewer Grid template, complete and upload to the External Reviewer Grid section of the case.
When a subcommittee is used or required by Faculty Code 24-54, the committee produces an initial substantive report and/or recommendation on the qualifications of the candidate for promotion and/or tenure (as applicable). This report is known as the Subcommittee Report and is shared verbatim with subsequent levels of review. The report must indicate if a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three eligible voting faculty. In all cases, the report must list all those who served on the committee (names and ranks). A summary or redacted version of the report (i.e., Subcommittee Summary) that removes identifiable references to external reviewers or specific committee members is shared with the candidate. If the candidate does not respond to the summary or their response does not warrant a revision to the report, the Subcommittee Report shall serve as the final recommendation to the appointing unit voting faculty. If the candidate’s response warrants a revision to the report, a Revised Subcommittee Report is produced and shall serve as the final recommendation to the appointing unit voting faculty.
Visit APF’s Subcommittee Information page to learn more about subcommittees.
The Subcommittee Report is generally the most detailed of all the reports generated in the promotion process – subsequent reports should refer to this Report rather than repeat its contents. If there is no subcommittee, the unit leader’s report should contain this material (or the SCC leader report in an undepartmentalized school or college). The Subcommittee Report should summarize the candidate’s career and accomplishments to date, with emphasis on the time in their current rank (which may include time at a different institution), highlighting the impact and trajectory of the work. It should detail strengths and weaknesses in research/scholarship, in teaching/mentoring, in service/leadership, and, if relevant for the particular appointment, in patient care and other activities. The report should evaluate these accomplishments with reference to the published criteria for promotion in the unit. Note that promotion and tenure guidelines should be written and widely circulated by the college/school and/or department (which reviews and updates them regularly) and should have been shared with both the candidate and the external evaluators.
The Subcommittee Report should also address evidence of the candidate’s recognition outside of UW and summarize the views of the external evaluators. The report should comment on the appropriateness of the evaluators and, if present, any weaknesses in the case pointed out by these evaluators. Note that the letters are in the file, so extensive quotes are not needed.
The Subcommittee should, in general, make a recommendation on promotion and/or tenure; in the case where there are <3 eligible voting faculty in the unit, the subcommittee vote doubles as the department vote, as all eligible voting faculty in the unit serve on the subcommittee. The subcommittee recommendation should be consistent with evidence of performance as documented in the rest of the dossier.
↑ Subcommittee Report
This is a substantive summary of the report produced by the subcommittee. The summary can be an original synopsis authored by the appointing unit leader, or it can be a copy of the original Subcommittee Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references to specific external reviewers and individual committee members. Whether an original document or redacted report, the summary must indicate if a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three eligible voting faculty. In all cases, the summary must list the members of the subcommittee. The summary must be shared with the candidate, who has an opportunity to provide a written response. Take care not to mix up the Subcommittee Report with the Subcommittee Summary. If the Subcommittee Report is revised, the Subcommittee Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised Subcommittee Summary.
↑ Subcommittee Summary
This is a substantive formal report–prepared by the appointing unit leader or designee–that summarizes the discussion and recommendation of eligible voting faculty in the candidate’s appointing unit. In addition to the recommendation of the faculty, the report should note concerns raised during the discussion and counter arguments raised to those concerns. If a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three eligible voting faculty in the unit, then a Faculty Report is not necessary. Please review the Faculty Report guidelines.
A positive recommendation results when >50% of eligible voting faculty vote in favor of promotion. In the case of a negative recommendation for the first consideration of a mandatory promotion, a unit may separately vote on a recommendation of a one-year postponement. Note that anyone tasked with making an independent analysis and recommendation (unit leader, SCC leader, or their designee) should neither vote nor be included in the count of eligible voting faculty.
If there is a Subcommittee Report, the Faculty Report should not repeat all the details, but just state which parts of the report were read, discussed, or summarized at the meeting. If there is not a Subcommittee Report, then the Faculty Report should summarize the specific information that was discussed at the meeting and the Appointing Unit Leader Report should contain a detailed description of the case (including relevant information not discussed).
The Faculty Report should make it clear that adequate consideration was given to teaching and mentoring, to research and/or other scholarly or creative activities, to service and leadership activities, and, if relevant to the particular appointment, to patient care and other activities. It should also address how the discussion and recommendation was based on established, published unit guidelines and criteria.
The Report should reflect the essence of the evaluative concerns and support raised in the faculty discussion regarding the candidate’s case, and the faculty’s recommended action. Views expressed by faculty dissenting from the unit recommendation should be reflected. For example, “the majority thought the quantity of publications was good, but questioned the quality,” or “a minority was concerned about the rate of productivity,” or “the research and scholarly publications were excellent, but a few faculty members expressed concerns about the quality of the teaching.” Avoid direct quotes, minutes, or transcripts of the proceedings, but note that a record of votes alone does not document the important issues in the deliberations.
If a departmental vote is mixed or negative, any concerns raised at the meeting must be noted; if none were raised, this should be noted.
Please include information on the timing of the vote (e.g., during the meeting or in a specified period following) and on whether the vote was open to those who were not present at the meeting (either in person or virtually). If the recommendation is not to promote or award tenure and this is the first mandatory consideration of a candidate, then the Summary should indicate whether the possibility of postponement was discussed and, if voted on, the faculty recommendation on postponement.
↑ Faculty Report
This document summarizes key candidate and case data for quick reference by evaluators at remaining stages of the review process. Some of the data is pulled in automatically from Workday. The Department Administrator will review and correct this data where necessary, and provide additional data about the case where indicated. The Data Sheet is a web form that is accessed and initiated on the RPT case maintenance page of this website. Once accurate and complete, the administrator will click “Add to Case” and a PDF will be automatically generated and added to the candidate’s RPT case.
↑ Candidate Data Sheet
This report outlines the SCC Committee’s recommendation to the SCC leader and corresponding rationale. This report is known as the SCC Committee Report and is shared verbatim with subsequent levels of review. The report must list all those who served on the committee (names and ranks). A summary or redacted version of the report (to remove identifiable references to external reviewers or specific committee members) is shared with the candidate. Please review the SCC Committee Report guidelines. The recommended template can be found on Templates & Guidelines.
Members of this promotion and tenure advisory body should only vote on cases for which they are superior in rank. It is highly recommended that anyone who participated in evaluation of a candidate at the appointing unit level should recuse themselves from the advisory body discussion and recommendation (undepartmentalized schools and colleges will have their own bylaws regarding this).
↑ SCC Committee Report
This report reflects an independent analysis of the case and includes either the recommendation and rationale to the provost (if the case is mandatory or a non-mandatory action is supported) OR the decision and rationale (if a non-mandatory action is not supported). Please review SCC Leader Report guidelines. If the case is mandatory or a non-mandatory action is supported, this is the final recommendation to the provost, unless the candidate or appointing unit leader response warrants a revision to the SCC Leader Report. If the candidate does not respond to the SCC Leader Summary or their response does not warrant a revision to the SCC Leader Report, the report shall serve as the final recommendation to the provost. If the candidate’s response warrants a revision to the SCC Leader Report, a Revised SCC Leader Report is produced and shall serve as the final recommendation to the provost. If the case is a non-mandatory action which is not supported, this is the final decision, unless the candidate or appointing unit leader response warrants a revision to the SCC Leader Report. If the candidate’s response warrants a revision to the SCC Leader Report, a Revised SCC Leader Report is produced and shall serve as the final recommendation to the provost.
The purpose of the SCC leader’s report is to summarize this independent assessment. There is no need to repeat detailed information that is elsewhere in the file. However, if there is no other document that does so (e.g., a subcommittee was not used in an undepartmentalized school or college), this report should include the information described above for any incomplete or missing documents.
In a case where the SCC leader is in full agreement with uniformly positive recommendations of the subcommittee, faculty, unit leader, and advisory council, where no significant concerns are documented, and where review documents generated earlier in the process clearly place the candidate’s impact in all the areas or responsibility in the context of the specific SCC mission, goals, expectations, and criteria, this report may be quite brief and refer to those documents.
However, if the candidate’s impact, most important accomplishments, and their context are not clearly stated in other review documents, if there are mixed or negative votes not clearly explained in other review documents, if there were strong differences in recommendation generated during the evaluation process, or if the SCC leader recommendation is contrary to any recommendations at earlier stages of review, the SCC leader report should clearly and specifically address these issues and provide explicit reasoning that led to the SCC leader recommendation, noting their adherence to the SCC promotion guidelines as well as any appropriate unit-level criteria.
↑ SCC Leader Report
This document includes two summary components: 1) A summary of the SCC Committee Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references or attributions to specific external reviewers, individual committee members, and specific voting faculty members. 2) A copy of the SCC Leader Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references or attributions to specific external reviewers, individual committee members, and specific voting faculty members. If the SCC leader would like additional information from the candidate, the request is made through this Summary document. This two-part summary must be shared with the candidate AND the appointing unit leader. In cases where the SCC leader’s recommendation or final decision is to not support the action, the candidate AND the appointing unit leader must have an opportunity to provide a written response. If the SCC Leader Report is revised, the SCC Leader Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate AND the appointing unit leader. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised SCC Leader Summary.
↑ SCC Leader Summary
This is an RPT form to be completed by the SCC leader or designee that indicates whether the candidate’s promotion is supported or not, as well as capturing the SCC Committee vote tally.
↑ SCC Leader Recommendation
This is a checklist for the administrator to ensure that specific items have been completed or reviewed and to confirm that the case is ready to move to the next level of review.
↑ SCC Administrator Sign-Off
This is an independent analysis of the case and the appointing unit leader’s recommendation to the SCC leader. This substantive report takes into account the Subcommittee Report (if a subcommittee was used), the candidate’s response to the Subcommittee Report, and the discussion of the eligible voting faculty (unless there were fewer than three voting eligible faculty and a Subcommittee was required). If the case is mandatory and the promotion is not supported, this report should indicate whether postponement was contemplated and if so, the outcome of a vote for postponement. Please review Appointing Unit Leader Report guidelines. If the candidate does not respond to the Appointing Unit Leader Summary or their response does not warrant a revision to the Appointing Unit Leader Report, the report shall serve as the final recommendation to the SCC leader. If the candidate’s response warrants a revision to the Appointing Unit Leader Report, a Revised Appointing Unit Leader Report is produced and shall serve as the final recommendation to the SCC leader.
An essential aspect of this report is to place the candidate’s scope (quality, productivity over time) and the IMPACT (or lack thereof) of the candidate’s performance in all areas of responsibility in the context of the specific departmental mission, goals, expectations, and criteria. The report should avoid summarizing information that can be found in other documents but rather provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the most important accomplishments of the candidate.
If concerns were raised during the process, either internally or by external reviewers, these, their counterarguments, and the prevalence of these concerns should be explicitly addressed by the unit leader. An explanation of contrary statements in the departmental reports, external letters, or members’ votes should be provided and given a sense of their weighting in the overall decision.
The unit leader should address any aspects of the Subcommittee and FD&V reports that need clarification, e.g., a candidate response to the Subcommittee Report, reasons behind a low rate of participation (absences, abstentions, and recusals), or discrepancies between votes and assessment. Note that neither lack of knowledge about the candidate’s research area nor lack of time to become familiar with the file are valid reasons for abstention.
The unit leader should also explain any special considerations for the case. For example, if the case is non-mandatory, note why this is the right year for consideration; if the case is a postponed mandatory consideration, explicitly address the candidate’s progress in the last year. If there were special hiring circumstances or clock-waivers, note these, as well. If the recommendation includes a change in track (e.g., research to WOT), that should be explained.
↑ Appointing Unit Leader Report (DEP only)
This document includes two summary components: 1) A copy of the Faculty Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references or attributions to specific external reviewers, individual committee members, and specific voting faculty members; vote counts may be omitted (NOTE: this component is not required in cases where a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three voting eligible faculty); 2) A copy of the Appointing Unit Leader Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references or attributions to specific external reviewers, individual committee members, and specific voting faculty members. This two-part summary must be shared with the candidate, who has an opportunity to provide a written response. If the Appointing Unit Leader Report is revised, the Appointing Unit Leader Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised Appointing Unit Leader Summary.
↑ Appointing Unit Leader Summary (DEP only)
This is an RPT form to be completed by the appointing unit leader or designee that indicates whether the candidate’s promotion is supported or not, as well as capturing the candidate’s workload distribution and reasons for any changes in workload since the candidate’s last hire/promotion.
↑ Appointing Unit Leader Recommendation (DEP only)
This is a checklist for the administrator to ensure that specific items have been completed or reviewed and to confirm that the case is ready to move to the next level of review.
↑ Department Administrator Sign-Off (DEP only)
This is a substantive summary of the report prepared by the SCC leader or designee. The summary can be an original synopsis authored by the SCC leader, or it can be a copy of the original Faculty Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references to specific external reviewers and faculty members. The summary must be shared with the candidate, who has an opportunity to provide a written response. Take care not to mix up the Faculty Report with the Faculty Summary. If the Faculty Report is revised, the Faculty Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised Faculty Summary.
↑ Faculty Report Summary (UNDEP only)
Adding Additional Materials
Units may add materials to a promotion and tenure case for a variety of reasons, including uploading required documents on behalf of the candidate (see Case Contents), sharing documents with the candidate such as the unit’s promotion/tenure criteria, and submitting required reports and summaries as stipulated in the faculty code.
Changes Resulting from the Spring 2024 Legislation
The Spring 2024 faculty senate legislation “Expanding Candidates’ Rights in the Promotion Process” amended section 24-54 of the Faculty Code to increase the number of documents that are shared with the candidate during the promotion and tenure review process, add additional opportunities for candidates to provide input during the process, and provide additional guidance on the content of shared documents. In addition, the Office for Academic Personnel and Faculty (APF) would like to promote equity across units and to streamline the review of dossiers at the Provost level by providing guidance and/or templates for these documents.
These guidelines both detail the code-mandated changes and provide content guidance.
There are up to six documents that are to be shared with the candidate under consideration for promotion and/or tenure. These documents are redacted versions of:
The Subcommittee Report process was not altered by the Spring 2024 legislation. Subcommittees continue to be required when there are fewer than 3 eligible voting faculty in the appointing unit and optional in larger units. A written summary of the Subcommittee Report must be shared with the candidate at least 7 days prior to its being shared with the voting faculty, and any response from the candidate must also be included in the dossier. Note that “eligible voting faculty” does not include anyone tasked with making an independent review later in the process (unit leader, SCC leader, or their designee).
The Faculty Discussion and Vote (FD&V) Summary was previously required to be shared with the candidate, but its content was not specified; the new legislation now specifies that the FD&V Summary must be “substantive” and “summarize the discussion, concerns raised, counterarguments to those concerns, and recommendation” of the appointing unit faculty. The FD&V Summary is shared with the candidate simultaneously with the Unit Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation.
The Unit Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation (for departmentalized schools and colleges) was previously only shared with those involved in subsequent review stages. The new legislation requires that this report (or a redacted version thereof) also be shared with the candidate, simultaneously with the FD&V Summary. Should the unit leader update their report after receiving a response from the candidate, this new report is shared with the candidate, but there is no avenue for further response unless there is a negative initial decision at a later stage in the process.
The Elected Faculty Advisory Committee or Council at the School/College/Campus level was previously only required to share their recommendation and reasons therefor with the candidate in cases where their recommendation was negative. A summary of the advisory board “recommendation with reasons therefor” is now required to be shared with the candidate in all cases, simultaneously with the SCC Leader report.
The SCC Leader Independent Analysis and Recommendation was previously only shared with the candidate in cases where the recommendation was negative. The new legislation requires that this report (or a redacted version thereof) be shared with the candidate in all cases, simultaneously with the advisory board summary. In cases where the recommendation is positive, the dossier is forwarded directly to the Office of the Provost for review and there is no provision for the candidate to respond. In cases where the recommendation is not positive, the requirement that the SCC leader or their designee meet with the candidate to discuss the case is unchanged; new with this legislation is a requirement that a written negative recommendation report also be shared with the Unit Leader, who has a 5-calendar-day window to respond in writing, with a copy to the candidate, while the candidate has a 7-day response window.
Review at the level of the provost was not specified in Faculty Code 24-54 prior to the Spring 2024 legislation. New in the legislation is a requirement that, should the initial decision of the provost be negative, the candidate, unit leader, and SCC leader will be provided with a summary of that recommendation and the reasons therefor. The Unit leader and SCC leader have 5 days to respond, with a copy to the candidate, and the candidate has a 7-day response window.