Department Committees

Guidelines for Departmental P&T Review

Committee Makeup:

  1. Minimum number of voting members: 3
  2. The department chair may participate only as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
  3. The department P&T committee may include faculty from outside the department (from elsewhere in the School of Medicine or on Grounds).
  4. Members may discuss and cast votes on candidates whose proposed rank is at or below their own rank.
  5. Tenured members may discuss and cast votes on all candidates; tenure-ineligible members may discuss and cast votes on tenure-ineligible candidates.

Responsibilities:

  1. The committee must review the candidate’s complete portfolio, including the internal, external, and independent letters of reference and provide written analysis pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the case
  2. The committee must address any negative or critical comments in the letters of reference.
  3. The department’s review should be formative; candidates should be given substantive feedback in time to strengthen their portfolios before final review and vote by the departmental committee.
  4. The committee recommends action to the department chair, via the completion of the Department P&T Committee Recommendation Form. The rationale for both positive and negative votes must be explained. The department chair makes the final decision about advancing or not advancing a candidate to be reviewed by the School of Medicine, and this may involve not accepting the recommendation of their department’s committee. The committee vote tally must be fully reported.
  5. In the event that the department chair does not support the candidate’s requested advancement, the candidate must be informed by September 30th. Any constructive feedback from the committee must be shared with the candidate.  The candidate has until the second Monday in October to submit an appeal to the Dean’s Office.
  6. The chair and, where applicable, division chief will provide a Letter of Nomination addressed to the dean that provides detailed rationale for or against advancement. If the chair’s recommendation is in opposition to the committee’s recommendation, the chair’s rationale for the decision must be explained.