Senior Appointments Committee J. M. Friedman, MD, PhD

Terms of Reference ◊Advise the President on individual cases with respect to promotion, tenure, and senior appointments according to Concepts of procedural fairness UBC policy, SAC guidelines, the Collective Agreement Appropriate standards across and within disciplines

Terms of Reference ◊Consider the merits of each specific case ◊Assure that all deliberations on the case are consistent with UBC policy, the Collective Agreement and concepts of procedural fairness

u File reviewed in detail by one of two subcommittees u If satisfactory, case ranked “A” and forwarded to full SAC for approval SAC Process: Subcommittee Review

u Ranking may be deferred for a set amount of time pending –Receipt of additional information or clarification from Dean –Resolution of procedural concern by Faculty Relations

SAC Process: Subcommittee Review u Cases ranked “B” referred to SAC for discussion with Dean –About 1/4 of all cases –Tenure cases with a negative recommendation –Conflicting recommendations from Head and Dean –SAC members raise concern

SAC Process: Full Committee Review u “A” cases generally approved without discussion u Entire process usually completed in 2-4 weeks

SAC Process: Full Committee Review u Questions regarding “B” cases sent to Dean with invitation to attend full SAC meeting u Dean must be present for all discussion of a case by SAC u Vote taken in Dean’s absence u Dean informed of result

u Chair informs President of SAC recommendation and vote on each case u Chair also provides President notes on SAC concerns and discussion regarding “B” cases SAC Process

u SAC recommendation and vote confidential – should not be given to candidate u Provost and President review case and recommend action to Board SAC Process

u External referee letters u Professional contributions u Scholarship of teaching u Teaching documentation u Curricula vitae Frequent SAC Issues

u At least 4 arms-length referees for promotions and tenure u At least 2 arms-length referees for new appointments u Senior Instructor letters need not be external but should avoid conflict of interest External Referee Letters

u May constitute a portion or all of scholarly activity u Must be “work of distinction” –Creative, standard-setting, changes practice of profession –Not routinely available from professionals in field u Not a consolation prize Professional Contributions

u Explicitly recognize and consider from outset and at all levels of review u Referee’s assessment of professional contributions and stature is critical –Explicitly request –Provide UBC evaluation criteria Professional Contributions

u May constitute a portion or all of scholarly activity u Broad contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning –Beyond excellence in teaching –Original, innovative, impact and change field, substantial and sustained use by others Scholarship of Teaching

u Explicitly recognize and consider from outset and at all levels of review u Referee’s assessment of contributions, leadership and stature is critical –Explicitly request –Provide UBC evaluation criteria Scholarship of Teaching

u Required in all cases u Effectiveness primary criterion –At all levels –Graduate supervision especially important u Methods may vary, but all substantial contributions must be documented and evaluated Teaching Documentation

u Full teaching dossier not useful for SAC u Quantitative and qualitative summary and assessment of –All teaching responsibilities –Student and peer evaluations –Graduate student supervision –Other teaching contributions, accomplishments, awards, etc. Teaching Documentation

u Use UBC format u Avoid duplication u Explain contributions to collaborative research, grants and publications u Keep up to date –Provide dated supplements as necessary Curricula Vitae