The intention of the School of Pharmacy (SOP) is to provide a post promotion review (PPR) policy that is in compliment with Faculty Policy and Procedures (FPP) 17.17 while at the same time being consistent to those policies adopted by tenured faculty in the SOP. Foremost is the desire to be cognizant of the need to provide a policy that fairly assesses the professional competence and duties associated with the faculty’s position, which include domains of scholarship, teaching, clinical practice, service, and where appropriate, outreach and extension education.
- The PPR committee will consist of two faculty members from the Faculty Activities Review (FAR) Committee. Note: The FAR committee members are elected each year by the Executive Committee to do the annual reviews of all faculty in the SOP. The two members of the FAR will be from the same division as the faculty member undergoing their five year post tenure review. If the faculty member under review rejects one or both of those chosen for their PPR committee, the chair of their respective division will bring to the Executive Committee, for vote of approval, alternative senior faculty member(s) from their division. Note in the event a small division has only few senior faculty members, a faculty member of the FAR committee from another division (tenured or CHS) will be appointed to be on their PPR committee.
- The criteria used to assess performance in the areas of teaching, clinical practice, service, outreach/extension, and research scholarly productivity will be based on comparison to the respective division’s expectations in each of those areas. These expectations and areas of emphasis will be adjusted for any particular faculty member to reflect their position. For example , a faculty member heavily involved in administrative activities may not be expected to have as high of research/scholarly and/or teaching loads . All faculty undergoing review will be required to provide a current curriculum vitae, annual activity reports for the previous five years , current peer teaching and student evaluations or summary evaluations, and any other evidence of the faculty member’s accomplishments and contributions that the division, SOP or faculty member feel relevant to the review. For example, this might include named chairs and professorships, major teaching awards, and national/international professional honors or awards. Letters from outside the university would not normally be part of the review process. The faculty member under review, may however solicit letters from either within UW or outside , that reflect domains of faculty member excellence, should they desire.
- The timeline will be consistent with the timeline established by the SOP for annual FAR. Reviews will be conducted in the spring semester with all reviews and responses completed and reported to the dean no later than the first business day in March.
- The procedure used in appointments of PPR committees for division chairs and other faculty with administrative appointments will be to select two committee members from the faculty in the FAR with the proviso that one must be a division chair or associate dean. The exception would be that if a chair is undergoing a PPR and rejects one or both of the assigned committee members. Then the dean will bring to the Executive Committee, for vote of approval, alternative faculty members from the chair’s division or another division if the chair comes from a smaller division having only a few faculty members. That said, the PPR committee must have at least one chair or one associate dean.
- The process by which adjustments to the five-year review schedule will be made by request to the associate dean for faculty in the SOP. Subsequently, such requests will be submitted by the PPR committee and voted on for approval by the Executive Committee. For example, the PPR committee could recommend that the review be deferred for unusual circumstances such as when it may coincide with an approved leave, significant life event, promotion review, or other appointment. If deferment is approved by vote at the Executive Committee, the dean would then need to approve the deferment before the request can be approved.