Unit Materials

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.

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.

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.

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 Candidate Data Sheet is a web form that is accessed and initiated on this website. Once accurate and complete, the Department Administrator will click “Add to Case” and a PDF will be automatically generated and added to the candidate’s RPT case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.