COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
"COLLECTIVE WISDOM"

Information on Promotion and Tenure/Continuing Status Issues
Updated April 2009

The "Collective Wisdom" website was developed as an easily-accessed, internal resource to provide practical, informal guidance and answers to frequently asked questions for college faculty navigating the process to promotion and/or the award of tenure or continuing status.

Candidates, mentors and unit heads should ALWAYS refer to the most recent set of Provost's Instructions (for either tenure or continuing track) and CALS Guidelines and Criteria for specific requirements and recent changes before preparing a dossier.

IMPORTANT: UNIT HEADS, COMMITTEES and CANDIDATES - PLEASE REVIEW THIS YEAR'S INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY!
The 2009-10 Provost's Instructions and Templates for Promotion and Tenure and for Continuing Status and Promotion contain SEVERAL CHANGES in KEY AREAS that should be verified before the dossier is sent to outside reviewers and committees.

• In utilizing standing P&T or P&C committees, consider potential conflicts of interest with regard to candidates coming forward for review. A committee member or administrator who has coauthored substantial publications or grants with a candidate should recuse himself or herself to avoid raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest. If recusing committee members is not feasible (in smaller units), the committee should address concerns about the extent of collaboration or conflicts of interest in their letter. Concerns about conflicts of interest may hurt a candidate by raising questions about the credibility of evaluations, and such concerns may result in dossiers being sent back to departments and colleges for re-review if the independence of the committee's evaluation is questioned. (While individuals who have ongoing close collaborations with a candidate generally should recuse themselves from the evaluative process, they may provide a separate collaborator letter for the dossier.)
• Any tenure clock delays or approved leaves of absence must be listed in Section I on the Summary Data Sheet and in Section II: Summary of Candidate's Workload Assignment to ensure that they are not misunderstood by external reviewers and others involved in the evaluation process. Provide only approved leave dates or clock timeline change. To preserve privacy rights, the reason should not be specified.
• Section II: Summary of Candidate's Workload Assignment has been revised to address multiple concerns about position descriptions. The workload summary/position description should describe the candidate's duties only and should not include evaluative or laudatory language. Percentage of effort should be defined as to what it means in the unit. Clarify if there have been substantial changes along the way. Provide effective dates on all position descriptions.
• Curriculum Vitae: TENURE TRACK candidates are required to provide a list of collaborators on grants and publications from the last five years in the c.v. Candidates who have not had collaborations during the last five years should state this explicitly under the heading "List of Collaborators."
• The Sample Letter to Outside Evaluators provided in the appendix has been modified to ask about the nature and extent of any collaboration. Be sure the person preparing these letters is aware of this new wording and that it must be followed exactly when requesting letters from outside evaluators.
• All committee members MUST SIGN the committee letter and provide a minority opinion if there is a split vote.

DESIGNING A STRONG DOSSIER
Updated April 2009

Each April, the Provost's Office issues instructions concerning the promotion process and preparation of dossiers for candidates in the next fiscal year cycle. The Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs also conducts a workshop for interested faculty, administrators, committee members and staff who assist in packet preparation. Each candidate must be given the current year's Provost's Instructions and attached set of divider/checklist pages to be used in the dossier to be sure all recent changes are incorporated. Please verify the correct template for P&T (tenure track) or CS&P (continuing track) has been used before the dossier goes to outside reviewers and committees.

The importance of the independence of the outside evaluators cannot be overemphasized. Section VII of the dossier (Letters from Outside Evaluators) requires specific documentation by the unit head to clarify independence. Review this section carefully to be sure you understand the process. Candidates may suggest no more than half the names of external reviewers. Unit heads make the final selection. If a name appears on both the candidate's and unit head's lists, count the name as a candidate suggestion and select another name from the unit head's list. If the lists are split 50/50, and a reviewer on the unit head's list does not respond, another reviewer must be selected and a letter obtained PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE UNIT LEVEL REVIEW so that no more than half the outside letters in the dossier are from reviewers on the candidate's list. All solicited letters must be included.

All dossiers are due to the Dean's office November 1. Plan ahead to be on time since CALS committees have deadlines to meet as well. The Provost's office now requires that colleges submit an original hard copy plus an electronic copy once the college review is complete. The college may still need additional copies. Further information on the number of copies that should be submitted to the college level will be provided later.

Do you have a question that is not answered below? Faculty or staff needing clarifications may contact CALS Dean's Office, Ph. 520-621-7621.

• General Suggestions (format, numbering, acronyms, new information, etc.)
• Early Consideration for Tenure or Continuing Status
• Candidates with Prior Experience
• Dossier Overview
• Dossier Requirements for 3-year Review
• Summary Data Sheet
• Workload Summary or Job Description
• Departmental and College Guidelines and Criteria
• Curriculum Vitae and Candidate's Statement
• Evaluation of Teaching and Advising for Tenure-track Faculty
• Evaluation of Teaching and Advising and/or Evaluation of Educational Outreach for Continuing-track Faculty
• Documentation for Interdisciplinary Candidates (Optional Section VI, if applicable for either track faculty)
• Letters from Outside Evaluators (Section VII for BOTH P&T and CS&P)
• Summary of Recommendations (Section VIII for BOTH P&T and CS&P)
• Appendices

The promotion process is strictly confidential. At no time should the candidate see letters from internal or external evaluators. Administrative personnel assisting with dossier preparation should use care to maintain confidentiality when copying, filing and distributing to committee members.

The University of Arizona requires a standardized format for the dossier. Since CALS college-level committees evaluate 10-15 dossiers a year and the university committees and senior administrators may read 70-100, the use of a standardized format helps insure a timely and efficient review of a candidate's accomplishments.

Follow the template included with the current Provost's Instructions exactly. Older versions will not include this year's changes. The checklist pages should be included as section dividers in the dossier and used to verify the materials are complete. Be sure to include required additional materials for interdisciplinary candidates or candidates with joint appointments. If a section such as the one on interdisciplinary activities is not applicable, mark the divider N/A. Section IV which contains the curriculum vitae and candidate's statement MUST have page numbers. Committee reviewers have indicated it is helpful if the Teaching and/or Outreach sections are numbered as well. Do NOT use page numbers for the entire dossier.

Candidates are strongly encouraged to utilize the assistance of one or more mentors in preparing the dossier and reviewing their candidate statement. P&T candidates should review the revised guidelines in the Section IV template for the candidate statement. Follow the guidelines for content and sequence and ask questions about anything not thoroughly understood. Think of the dossier as an educational tool that must convey to reviewers outside the college and university:

• who you are;
• what you are expected to do; and,
• how well you do it.

Candidates should prepare the Statement of Accomplishments and Objectives as carefully as a professional article. Do not exceed the 5-page limit. Acronyms or abbreviations should be defined the first time they are used or a page of definitions should be provided. Consider readability in choosing font size, margins, etc. Units should ask/assign at least one very detail-oriented person to review the dossier for accuracy and completeness as its quality reflects on both the candidate and unit at the next levels of review.

Many people will be involved in reviewing a promotion and tenure or continuing dossier. Once it progresses beyond the college level, some reviewers will be people outside the candidate's field. The workload summary states the candidate's assigned responsibilities in terms of percentages but it should also provide an explanation of what these percentages mean in the unit. The recommended position description format for ALL CALS DOSSIERS is the one used for APROL, which is signed by the candidate, unit head and dean and should specify the effective date. Additional instructions are on the Section II Checklist/Template. The responsibilities of continuing-track faculty should be particularly well defined to insure understanding by reviewers beyond the college level. Since the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the only unit on campus that has Cooperative Extension, the nature of Extension appointments is often not clearly understood.

Occasionally a major piece of new information is received after the dossier has left the unit. If it appears that the information might impact the evaluation decision, the new information must be resubmitted to the committees at each level in order to be added to the dossier. The absolute final deadline at the university level for additional information is February 1 (with any re-reviews already completed).

Under special circumstances, candidates may submit a dossier prior to the mandatory review year, but candidates and unit heads should be sure they meet all the criteria for tenure or continuing status. Many early candidates have prior experience elsewhere. Early candidates will be judged on whether they meet unit, college and university guidelines irrespective of the time they have spent at the University of Arizona. Committees will look at whether the candidate meets the same criteria as someone going up in their sixth year here. Candidates are not expected to meet higher standards to be promoted or receive tenure or continuing status early. If the outcome of the early review is a recommendation to deny tenure or continuing status, candidates may reapply during their mandatory review year. (The denial following an early review will not result in a terminal year appointment as was done in the past.)

Normally a candidate is evaluated on six years of work, all of which was completed here. For candidates with prior experience elsewhere, the dossier should emphasize the work done at the University of Arizona although other work can be included. The workload summary and percentages of responsibility in teaching, research and service in Section II apply only to the position here. The curriculum vitae should include all publications with the most recent work listed first. Teaching evaluations from the prior institution and even a summary of student evaluations may be included, but only going back to a combined total of six years.

The first four sections of the dossier require relatively similar materials for both tenure and continuing track faculty. For the tenure-track dossier, section V includes an evaluation of teaching and advising. For the continuing-track dossier, section V should include the applicable materials for the candidate's position, either an evaluation of teaching and advising (V-A) or an evaluation of educational outreach (V-B), or both in some cases. Letters from Outside Evaluators will be placed in section VII for BOTH P&T and CS&P. Section VIII, now the final section for both tracks, will contain the recommendations made by committees and administrators at each level.

If applicable, tenure-track or continuing-track faculty who participate in interdisciplinary programs should provide additional pertinent information in sections II and IV, and their dossiers should include section VI. (See appropriate appendix of the Provost's Instructions.)

A complete dossier is required for the formal 3-year review with the exception of Section VII: Letters from Outside Evaluators. Include the checklists/templates attached to the Provost's Instructions. Mark the action box on the cover page for "Reappointment in Rank." Candidates should read the instructions carefully and make sure they understand the process. Review the position description/workload summary; it should accurately reflect the work that a candidate is being asked to do. An original will be needed for the 6-year review but a copy is sufficient at the 3-year point. The curriculum vitae should follow the format on the Provost's template. Prepare the candidate statement early and ask a mentor or senior faculty member to review it for clarity and organization. Prepare the appropriate teaching materials and obtain a TCE summary for Section V (tenure track). Develop materials regarding teaching for Section V-A and/or educational outreach programs with an emphasis on measurable impact for Section V-B (continuing track).

A carefully prepared 3-year dossier will allow better, more specific feedback on what needs to be accomplished prior to the 6-year review. The dossier will be reviewed by the unit peer committee and unit head. The unit head will make a recommendation as to retention and provide candidates with written feedback regarding their progress toward tenure or continuing status. Unit heads will then forward the entire dossier to the dean for review at the college level. If there is a recommendation for non retention, the dossier will also be reviewed by the college and university committees and the Provost.

The cover page for the dossier lists current information about the candidate, action requested, mandatory final review year for tenure- or continuing-eligible faculty, education and position history. Accuracy is very important. Be sure to list all approved leaves or clock delays as well as any joint appointments.

CALS revised guidelines and criteria stress the importance of position descriptions in providing the context for all evaluation decisions so it is particularly important that the candidate's responsibilities be clearly presented. This section will be read carefully by outside evaluators and both the college and university committees. The recommended position description format for ALL CALS DOSSIERS is the one used in APROL, which is dated and signed by the candidate, unit head and dean. Committees at all levels have asked that the position description show the date of adoption or effective date. If there have been significant changes in assigned workload, include prior versions as well. A position description with original signatures is required in the set of originals submitted for the six-year tenure or continuing status review.

The workload summary or job description deals with a candidate's assignment (not necessarily the same as funding percentages) and should include percentages of effort in teaching, research, extension and/or service. The workload summary should not contain any evaluative or laudatory language. Explain clearly what the stated teaching, research and service percentages mean in the unit as this varies widely across the university (i.e., what constitutes a 40% teaching load in your unit - one course, two courses, or two courses one semester and one course the other semester). The weight that is given to various elements of the dossier by the committees is determined by the job description. If the candidate disagrees with the stated responsibilities, an explanation must be included.

One page abstracts of the appropriate college criteria specifically designed for the dossier are available online: http://ag.arizona.edu/dean/ptcindex.html. Departments should include only their relevant guidelines or provide an abstract if their guidelines are lengthy. If department faculty voted to use college level guidelines and criteria, the unit head should provide a statement in Section III. Cooperative Extension Agents have specific written guidelines and criteria as well. The longer version of CALS guidelines and criteria and examples of activities may be sent to outside reviewers to provide greater detail but should be replaced with the abstract when the dossier is submitted to the college level. College and university committees have access to the full version of CALS Guidelines and Criteria.

Each candidate must prepare his or her own curriculum vitae (c.v.) and sign the last page, certifying that it is "a true and accurate statement of activities and accomplishments..." (See exact wording in Provost's instructions.)

New faculty should prepare the c.v. in the recommended format early in their career at the University of Arizona. Publications should be listed in chronological order (from oldest to most recent) but positions of employment should be listed in reverse chronological order (most recent first). Cite work under research or teaching but not both, according to the area it best represents. List the full number of pages in the publications citation. The citation should make clear if the candidate is the first author or a major contributor. Explain any method of listing work in the c.v. that is unique to the discipline (authorship listings, grad students, page numbers, grant efforts). Designate works in process separately.

Tenure track candidates must provide a list of all collaborators on grants and publications over the last five years. (Check the template for further details.)

Percentage of effort on grants is interpreted differently across campus. Committees at the college and university level prefer that each candidate define what "percent effort" means in their area. For example, "percent effort" could be defined as the average weekly percentage of research time spent on a grant. Thus a 40 percent weight for research (40% research, 40% teaching and 20% service = 100%) would translate on average to 16 research hours per 40 hour week; a 10 percent research effort would equate to 1.6 hours/week. In another discipline, "percent effort" might mean share of work on a grant, so that three researchers splitting the work evenly would each have a 33 percent share.

Although there is no longer a page limit for the c.v., a committee member or senior administrator who may read up to 100 dossiers will value conciseness. Some efforts can be consolidated (ex. a grant summary table for small grants or projects) and still make the point that these activities were completed.

The candidate statement is read very carefully by committees and is included in the materials that go to outside reviewers. (P&T candidates should review the revised guidelines on the Section IV template in the Provost's Instructions.) Make sure the statement is clearly presented, adhere to 5 page maximum, and ask one or more trusted colleagues to read/critique it for content, readability and grammatical accuracy before submitting the final copy. The statement is meant to identify professional goals, explain how research, teaching or extension objectives have evolved over time, and show how accomplishments support future objectives and direction. One of the biggest mistakes candidates make is going into too much detail on the accomplishments themselves rather than how they support objectives. The characteristics of a good candidate statement are clarity, organization, sense of purpose, clear goals, and honesty.

Candidates should have a clear research focus by the time they come up for tenure or continuing status. Their research should show a coherent pattern, preferably evolving from the doctoral degree to the present. If there has been a change in direction, this should be explained. Teaching and outreach goals and objectives are important as well. Including weaknesses is not necessarily harmful, especially if accompanied by a statement of how they were overcome. Candidates may also use the personal statement as an opportunity to clarify any areas of the c.v. which are out of norm.

• Pay particular attention to the readability of the statement and the 3-5 page limit.
• Concentrate on concepts and how they are important in the field, not on specific technical details.
• Be concise and use a clear writing style.
• Remember that some readers will be outside the discipline; statements containing too many technical terms may be less effective.
• Define acronyms or abbreviations the first time they are used.
• Incomplete sentences and misspellings distract from the message. Ask someone to proofread the statement since spell check and grammar check do not catch all errors.
  

THE LATTER SECTIONS OF THE DOSSIER ARE DIFFERENT FOR TENURE- AND CONTINUING-TRACK FACULTY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY CANDIDATES.

Section V: Evaluation of Teaching and Advising (for tenure-track faculty)

Both teaching and research are valued at The University of Arizona; however, the university no longer grants tenure to faculty unless they are effective teachers. The Teaching Center can help candidates improve their skills along the way with self evaluation, video analysis and other techniques.

This section is prepared jointly by the candidate and the unit head. Information should be presented clearly and succinctly. Materials may include formal peer reviews, peer evaluation of teaching materials, student evaluations, evidence of student success, etc. In listing courses taught over the last five years, candidates should specify if these were existing courses or courses they were asked to develop. Candidates should document teaching development activities in which they have participated, workshops attended, and innovative technologies they are using. Combine information where possible (grad students advised, theses and dissertations supervised, etc) rather than repeat the same set of names several times. List awards or distinctions earned by your students as they reflect on you as well. Individual letters from students can be included in this section but should be chosen judiciously; these letters do not carry the same weight as those of independent outside evaluators and too many can actually be seen as detracting. If teaching awards or grants are listed, explain their relevance or importance for the benefit of future reviewers.

Provide a ONE PAGE SUMMARY of teacher course evaluations only. The most effective way of presenting the student evaluations is to use some form of comparative analysis with the department. Instructional Assessment and Evaluation Services on campus can provide a TCE summary analysis.

TCEs should not necessarily be the sole means of evaluating teaching. Peer evaluations of teaching conducted by the department/school can also be included as part of the dossier.

Section V contains the applicable materials for the continuing-track candidate's position responsibilities:

V-A: Evaluation of Teaching and Advising (for candidates who have responsibility for teaching one or more credit classes)

See description under section V for the tenure-track dossier.

V-B: Evaluation of Educational Outreach (for candidates who have responsibility for a major Extension program)

A description of three or four major components of the candidate's program should be clearly stated. These efforts should coincide with the stated program thrusts in the position description. Include the purpose and objectives of the program, the target group, and expected results. Specify indicators by which objectives can be measured.

The section on program implementation should summarize what was accomplished in relation to previously stated objectives, including activities, services, seminars, products, contacts, teaching hours and grants. Do not list every event or activity separately.

Program evaluation should utilize performance measures designed to document changes in knowledge, attitude, skills, behavior, and/or aspiration which may have occurred in the target clientele as a result of the program. Program accomplishments should include outcomes or effects, changes that resulted and/or long term impact of the program. "Impact" is the social, economic and/or environmental effect or consequence of the program.

Outside evaluators, as well as college and university committee members, invariably comment on demonstrated impact or lack thereof in discussions of a candidate's programs.

Interdisciplinary efforts require a letter of evaluation from the head of the other unit where the interdisciplinary activities are taking place. (Refer to the appropriate appendix of the Provost's Instructions for details on additional materials to include in other sections of the dossier as well.)

LETTERS FROM OUTSIDE EVALUATORS (Now Section VII for BOTH P&T and CS&P)

Letters from outside evaluators provide an independent evaluation of the impact of the candidate's accomplishments on the field of work from people who are nationally and internationally recognized within the discipline or area of assignment; hence, they carry a great deal of weight.

Unit heads should be especially careful to choose reviewers who are truly independent of the candidate. When letters come back with statements indicating a close connection with the candidate they will NOT be considered independent. Candidates may suggest names of potential reviewers to the unit head, but no more than 50 percent of the letters in the dossier may come from those suggested by the candidate. Unit heads should select different names from those on the candidate's list. (Units must specify in the dossier which names were suggested by the candidate and which by the unit head.) Candidates should never contact outside reviewers directly and should not see these letters. It is the responsibility of the unit head to select and contact the outside reviewers. NOTE: If the lists are split 50/50, and a reviewer on the unit head's list does not respond, another reviewer must be selected and a letter obtained PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE UNIT LEVEL REVIEW so that no more than half the outside letters in the dossier are from reviewers on the candidate's list. All solicited letters must be included.

The dossier must include a minimum of three letters from independent evaluators (a total of six letters if three names were from each list). In general, letters of evaluation should be solicited from people at or above the rank for which the candidate is being reviewed (for promotion to full rank, all or most of the reviewers should be full rank), of the same status (tenure or continuing), and from peer or similar types of institutions. International referees should be familiar enough with our system to understand the importance of providing an in depth analysis of the candidate's impact on the field. People in related industries can provide good evaluations in some fields but need to understand the requirements to provide the type of analysis needed for this type of review. Outside reviewers may be asked to supply a short c.v. or list of career highlights for the unit head's use in preparing a biographical summary page. The c.v.'s of the outside reviewers should NOT be included in the dossier.

Make sure the person preparing the letters to outside reviewers uses the Provost's Sample Letter in the appendix included with this year's instructions; any changes to the wording of the sample letter must be approved by the dean. Be sure that the letter to outside evaluators specifies the correct action being considered (promotion to what rank, and whether the award of tenure or continuing status is to be assessed). Unit heads may pre-contact the list of outside evaluators early in the process with a short note or e-mail stating the time frame for the evaluation and asking if they will be available to review the packet by the deadline. Materials sent to outside evaluators include the workload summary or position description, relevant departmental and college criteria, the c.v. and candidate's statement and a selection of articles by the candidate. Beginning in 2008, teaching and/or outreach materials submitted by the candidate should be included as well. Usually only the most important and most recent articles are included. Although there is no set number, recognized experts receive many requests and may decline if too much material is sent. Teaching materials are usually well evaluated internally; however, if evaluators are familiar with the candidate's teaching, they may comment on teaching skills.

Unit heads are responsible for providing the documentation required for the Letters from Outside Evaluators Section including a description of the process used to select evaluators, a list of evaluators (name, title and institution only) suggested by the candidate, a list of evaluators suggested by the unit head, committee or others (name, title and institution only) and a final list of all evaluators contacted (indicating if any declined or did not respond). Short (one-paragraph) biographical statements should identify evaluators by title and position, by stature in the field, key memberships or other criteria that will give committees a sense of the qualifications and stature of the writer. If the writer is not located at one of the university's peer institutions, an explanation should be provided as to why the person was selected or why the institution is important in the discipline. A sample copy of the request letter and a description of the materials sent to outside evaluators must also be included.

Letters from collaborators or clientele, if appropriate, may be included in a separate section following the independent outside evaluators' letters. Make a plain paper divider labelled "Letters from Collaborators". If collaboration has been important to the candidate, special letters from collaborators detailing specific involvement in such efforts may be requested by the unit head. A short description of the person's stature or importance in the field should be provided for these letters as well.

SECTION VIII FOR TENURE-TRACK FACULTY:

This section includes letters of evaluation from the department or school committee, unit head, college P&T committee and dean. Candidates should be evaluated against the unit's and college's written guidelines and criteria. A committee member or administrator who has coauthored substantial publications or grants with a candidate should recuse himself or herself from the evaluative process to avoid raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

Unit heads and deans must notify the candidate in writing of their decisions when the dossier is sent forward to the next highest level. (Candidates going up early or those who have achieved tenure and are requesting promotion only have the option to withdraw the dossier and resubmit in a future year. Candidates in their mandatory year may not withdraw unless they resign and waive review.)

The departmental peer committee and unit head have the most knowledge of the candidate's discipline. Their letters should discuss the candidate's research, teaching and service in the context of their decision. The responsibility at this level is to clearly describe the nature and significance of the candidate's research for those outside the field and clarify any issues related to the culture of the field such as issues of co-authorship (as regards custom in the field) and significance (or lack thereof) of first authorship. If the candidate has made significant efforts as a part of a team, the unit head should be sure the extent of these efforts is clearly explained for reviewers beyond the unit level.

All members of the committee must sign the letter. Any potential conflicts of interest should be addressed and the nature and extent of collaborative efforts explained if circumstances precluded recusal of standing committee members. When there is a split departmental or college committee vote, the committee letter should explain the basis for both the majority and minority points of view (preferably in one letter but separate letters are acceptable). Minority opinions should be presented with the same care as majority opinions. Reviewers at the next level need to be able to understand the pros and cons weighed in making the decision.

SECTION VIII FOR CONTINUING-TRACK FACULTY:

This section includes letters of evaluation from the department, school or Extension committee, unit head, college P&C committee and dean. Candidates should be evaluated against the written guidelines and criteria of the unit or Cooperative Extension and the college. A committee member or administrator who has coauthored substantial publications or grants with a candidate should recuse himself or herself from the evaluative process to avoid raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

Unit heads and deans must notify the candidate in writing of their decisions when the dossier is sent forward to the next highest level. (Candidates going up early or those who have achieved continuing status and are requesting promotion only have the option to withdraw the dossier and resubmit in a future year. Candidates in their mandatory year may not withdraw unless they resign and waive review.)

The unit or Extension peer committee and the unit head have the most knowledge of the candidate's discipline. Their letters should discuss the candidate's research, teaching and service in the context of their decision. The responsibility at this level is to clearly describe the nature and significance of the candidate's research or programs for those outside the field and clarify any issues related to the culture of the field such as issues of co-authorship (as regards custom in the field) and significance (or lack thereof) of first authorship. If the candidate has made significant efforts as a part of a team, the unit head should be sure the extent of these efforts is clearly explained for reviewers beyond the unit level.

All members of the committee must sign the letter. Any potential conflicts of interest should be addressed and the nature and extent of collaborative efforts explained if circumstances precluded recusal of standing committee members. When there is a split committee vote, the committee letter should explain the basis for both the majority and minority points of view (preferably in one letter but separate letters are acceptable). Minority opinions should be presented with the same care as majority opinions. Reviewers at the next level need to be able to understand the pros and cons weighed in making the decision.

Be sure to include required additional materials for interdisciplinary candidates or candidates with joint appointments. In some cases other additional materials may be submitted; however, these should be minimized and confined to those activities that are unique or require special discussion for full understanding of a candidate's activities.

Additional CALS "Collective Wisdom" Information:

• A Common Sense Guide for New Faculty and Administrators
• The Evaluation Process for Promotion and Tenure, Promotion and Continuing Status
• Return to "Collective Wisdom" Overview